Oral Answers to Questions

WORK AND PENSIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Unemployment (Advice)

Paul Stinchcombe: What plans he has to increase the amount of personal advice available to unemployed people at jobcentres.

Nick Brown: We are aiming to launch 15 of the 17 Jobcentre Plus pathfinder areas later this month; they comprise around 50 pathfinder offices. We anticipate that the remaining two pathfinder areas will be operating by the end of the year, once building work is completed.
	From April next year, the Employment Service and the parts of the Benefits Agency that support people of working age will come together to form Jobcentre Plus. As the service rolls out, we will deliver an integrated service to employers and benefit claimants of working age nationally.

Paul Stinchcombe: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, which is good news as far as it goes. However, what advice has he for my constituent, who has been unemployed for two years and is about to go on the new deal for the second time? He is unsure that it will be targeted to his needs because on the previous occasion, he was offered two modules of environmental studies at NVQ level 2 when he already has a first class honours degree in physics.

Nick Brown: My hon. Friend's constituent is obviously a bright chap who is finding it difficult to get placed in the labour market. He is not typical, but it is the purpose of the new Jobcentre Plus structures, with their personally tailored advice, to ensure that individuals such as my hon. Friend's constituent can be properly placed. If more needs to be done to help him, the state is ready to stand in his corner.

Archy Kirkwood: The move towards personal advisers is welcome, but did the Minister notice during the summer that the Department's in-house briefings—I believe that the relevant briefing number is 84—demonstrated some staff anxiety about the amount of work that they are doing, which denies them the opportunity to get involved in the case load and the referral activities that are necessary for the scheme to work? Will the Minister assure the House that those anxieties will be tackled and that the new project, which deserves to succeed, will not be left wanting for lack of management back-up and resources?

Nick Brown: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks, and I welcome his broad support for the Jobcentre Plus concept. Some public servants believe that they will be required to do for Jobcentre Plus the sort of work that they currently do in benefits offices. That is not the intention. We are launching something new and different from what previously existed. The intention is to be far more proactive with individual claimants, go through their welfare entitlement as well as their job opportunities, and work closely with them over a period of time. All that is new. We believe that it is the right approach; the senior management of the public service is enthusiastic about it. I am sure that, as people see the new offices and the way in which the new service works, we will engage the enthusiasm of all who work for us.

Bill O'Brien: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, when offering additional advice at jobcentres, staff will be acquainted with the position of war pensioners? People who receive a pension, and also get jobseeker's allowance because they are looking for employment, have been told they will lose their war pension. It is important to make them aware of the position when they register at the jobcentre for jobseeker's allowance.

Nick Brown: I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's point is drawn to the attention of those who give advice on benefits entitlement before moving on to considering what employment is available, but the Government intend that work will pay for people in a range of different circumstances. Although there are always hard cases and exceptions, for the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens, work rather than being on benefits will pay.

James Clappison: The constituent of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) may not be typical, but does the Minister know that, according to the Department's most recent statistics, only 40 per cent. of those leaving the new deal for young people, and fewer than 20 per cent. of those leaving the new deal for the long-term unemployed received jobs that lasted for more than 13 weeks? Is not that disappointing, especially in times when many of them would have found work anyway? Is there not a case, especially in view of uncertain world economic conditions, for considering whether the new deal meets employers' needs and provides a good deal for the unemployed and the taxpayer?

Nick Brown: I begin by welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities and I look forward to arguing about those matters with him, no doubt for a long time to come. I hope that that serves him well in his party.
	I do not accept the deadweight cost argument. The new deal for young people has already got about 250,000 young people into permanent employment and has found employment for more than 300,000 young people. The hon. Gentleman makes the point that the labour market may be loosening—we await events—but surely that makes the case even more firmly not for letting up, but for what we are doing. What alternative does he propose? We move from a welfare state to a welfare society, but what is a welfare society? I look forward to hearing from him in future exchanges.

John Cryer: On personal advice for unemployed people who are also disabled, will my right hon. Friend examine the shortage of disability employment advisers, which seems to be significant, particularly in my area of the country in outer east London? Will he also bear in mind that resources seem to be drifting from disability employment advice to the access to work scheme, excellent though it is? That appears to be adding to the shortage.

Nick Brown: We take the issue of advice to those who have disabilities seriously and I undertake to re-examine the matter, particularly in my hon. Friend's constituency, because he has raised it with me. As we roll out the new deal for the disabled, the Government intend to help into work people who have been disadvantaged in the labour market over a long period and to press ahead with that regardless of the circumstances in which the labour market more generally finds itself.

Pension Provision

Howard Flight: If he will make a further statement on the McDonald report into pension provision.

Alistair Darling: As I told the hon. Gentleman when he asked a similar question on 25 June, we shall continue to discuss with interested parties and with him, no doubt, whether it is possible to devise workable and affordable alternatives to the annuity purchase requirement.

Howard Flight: As the House will be aware, the Government have stalled for three years on considering stopping people having to buy annuities by the age of 75. The argument that the Secretary of State made previously involved concerns for tax revenues, but there is a meeting, of which he will be aware, between the Treasury and the Retirement Income Reform Group on Wednesday. If the Treasury's fears are allayed, will he confirm that the Government will move ahead in earnest and before retiring pensioners suffer further damage? My concern is that the real policy may be that which the Minister for Pensions commented on to the Trades Union Congress this summer.

Alistair Darling: I am aware that a meeting is taking place, but the problem with which the hon. Gentleman must come to terms is that the majority of people in this country have only a small sum with which to purchase their pension pot—about £30,000 on average. We must think long and hard about changing from the present system to a new one that might benefit a few people, but which might disadvantage the majority. None of us wants that, and I make a point that bears repetition.
	Some people face difficulty because of increased longevity and because interest rates are generally lower. On the other hand, annuity rates vary substantially and I repeat what the Government have said previously: many people would be well advised to seek the best offer on retirement, because the current difference—between 5 per cent. at the lower end and 12 per cent. at the top end—is dramatic.

Kevin Brennan: Does the Secretary of State know of the other proposals on annuities provision such as those from the Tenon group? Does he agree that if such proposals are shown to be workable and if they would not result in loss of revenue to the Treasury, the Government should implement them as swiftly as possible?

Alistair Darling: It is certainly true that if someone proposed a much better scheme that cost no more and gave pensioners lots more money, most Governments would consider it. I am aware of the latest proposals—indeed, I have received a copy of the letter that set them out—but I repeat the point that I made to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight). The current position is that the vast majority of those who are retiring have, on average, £30,000 available to purchase an annuity. Any question of drawing down a lump sum is academic, assuming that they expect to live for a reasonable number of years into retirement.
	I am not against change and the Government will consider alternatives if they are better, but we cannot embark on a course of action that might benefit a few people, some of whom are substantially well provided for, at the expense of the majority. I ask my hon. Friend to examine the implications of all those proposals, because, as with so many on the matter, one must ask where they are coming from, exactly what drives the desire to make reforms and who they would benefit.

Work (Deprived Areas)

David Crausby: What plans he has to help people in deprived areas find work.

Alistair Darling: The new deal has helped thousands of people back into work. In addition to Jobcentre Plus, which will open this autumn, we have also introduced action teams for jobs and employment zones, which are helping people in the most deprived areas. Today we are increasing the number of action teams from 40 to 53, and further steps will be announced in due course.

David Crausby: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but what action is he taking to help the increasing number of people who are losing jobs in manufacturing to find other jobs in the industry? Does he agree that this nation cannot afford to lose those valuable skills?

Alistair Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend that we must do everything possible to ensure that we get people who lose their job, whether it is in manufacturing or elsewhere, back into work as quickly as possible. That philosophy has underpinned the Government's whole approach to their employment policies over the past four years, and it will continue to do so. It is worth bearing it in mind that, although there have undoubtedly been a number of redundancies—some quite large ones have been announced over the past few weeks—some 34,500 new jobs were announced in the month to 10 October. For some reason, the announcement of new jobs does not tend to get the same coverage as redundancies. I do not for one moment seek to play down the significance of the redundancies that have been announced and their effect on individuals and on the communities where they take place, but I assure my hon. Friend that the Employment Service will do everything possible, through its jobs transition service and other measures, to ensure that those who lose their job can get back into work.

Anne McIntosh: The Secretary of State will be aware that although rural constituencies such as the Vale of York have pockets of deprivation, they have no physical jobcentre. What will his Department do to give people in those deprived areas access to jobcentres, which are sometimes a considerable distance away?

Alistair Darling: I am well aware that many rural areas suffer unemployment and deprivation. The Government's policy right across the board, whether it is investment in education or in the Employment Service, is directed as much towards those people as it is towards people living in urban areas. Everybody, no matter where they live, has access to a jobcentre or the new Jobcentre Plus. There has never been a jobcentre in every high street; there was not when the Conservative Government were in power. The difference between our two Governments is that we are making sure at every opportunity, whether it is through jobcentres, new deals or action teams for jobs, that we do everything possible to help people who lose their jobs to get back into work, especially where there is long-term unemployment. We are changing the tax and benefit systems to make sure that work pays and doing more to ensure that work is possible for people who, until now, might have been denied that opportunity.

Frank Field: On behalf of my constituents may I thank the Secretary of State for reminding us of the measures that the Government have already introduced to help people without jobs to find work? However, does he accept that many of us—now on both sides of the House—represent areas where, year on year, fewer jobs are available, while areas within travelling distance have more than full employment? Will he consider, as an additional part of his strategy of helping people into work, allowing people to choose personal advisers from areas with a shortage of workers, rather than from areas where there are not enough jobs to go around?

Alistair Darling: The present system, which we have introduced in the past couple of years, ensures that no matter where a jobcentre is, vacancies are linked up across the whole country. For example, somebody going into a jobcentre in my right hon. Friend's constituency could see on the touch-screen computer facilities the jobs available throughout the country. Simply because someone happens to live in a constituency with a more difficult employment situation, they should not be denied the opportunity—and, indeed, the help, which can be provided by the action team for jobs—to get work in areas where there are more jobs than people. It is important that we look at the employment situation across the whole country precisely to tackle the problems that my right hon. Friend knows only too well and that we see in other parts of the country.

Sydney Chapman: Will the Secretary of State share with the House his assessment of the cost and cost-effectiveness of his new deal strategy? If he feels that it has been good value for money, how is it that unemployment has fallen less quickly under this Government than it did under the previous one?

Alistair Darling: I know that the hon. Gentleman spent many years as a Whip when his party was in government so he had to obey a Trappist vow and say nothing, but I did not know that he was not allowed to read anything either. He must have noticed the extremely high levels of unemployment that the Conservative Government managed to achieve on more than one occasion. To claim credit for getting levels down is stretching credulity.
	The hon. Gentleman may care to consider the two independent surveys of the new deal for young people, which showed that, but for the new deal, youth unemployment would have been twice as high. That represents a substantial saving for our gross domestic product because of the benefits that we do not have to pay out and the increased tax payments from people who have got back into work.
	We still have a lot more to do for the over-50s. It is a staggering fact that one third of people over the age of 50 are out of work. It is interesting to note that since 1979—I pick that date at random—that has cost the country £16 billion in GDP. Surely that is evidence that the Government are right to continue what they started, and to do even more through the new deal and other measures to get people into work.

Disabled People

Linda Gilroy: What support his Department is giving to help people with disabilities get back into work.

Andrew Miller: What support his Department is giving to help those with disabilities to get back into work.

Alistair Darling: Our objective is to help all those who can work to do so. That is why we are introducing a single gateway to the benefits system, so that there is not only a clear focus on work but we can ensure that people are getting the right level of support.

Linda Gilroy: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Those measures are already helping many of my constituents who are among the 1 million people with disabilities who the Disability Rights Commission says would like to work. Will he leave no stone unturned to ensure that his Department helps such people into work, so that they are not abandoned and forgotten, as they were for far too long under the Conservative Government?

Alistair Darling: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. The problem in the past was that, although the system offered some help to people who were registered as unemployed or jobseekers since 1996, it did precious little to help other people of working age who were not working for one reason or another. That is why in July this year I promised the House that I would lay regulations before it this autumn, which it will be able to debate through arrangements that will no doubt be made. Those regulations will introduce new measures to ensure that no one on, for example, incapacity benefit needs to go for more than three years without their case being thoroughly looked into to make sure that all opportunities for work are considered if that is appropriate, and if that is not appropriate to make sure that people are getting the right level of benefit. It is critical that we should not leave people of working age without any opportunity to work. That was one of the main failings of the system in the past, and we do not intend to perpetuate it.

Andrew Miller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that more needs to be done to inform employers and the general public about the contribution that people with disabilities could make to the work force? Sadly, in some sectors there is much ignorance about the potential of people with disabilities and the benefit of those people to employers and to the public.

Alistair Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend. Too many people are reluctant, for one reason or another, to employ people with a disability. Sometimes it is because of a wholly irrational fear. That problem needs to be tackled. One of the main purposes of the Disability Rights Commission is to raise awareness and to tackle prejudice. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will do everything they can to tackle prejudice, which has no place in this area of employment. We are anxious to raise awareness and to ensure that we increase the number of people with a disability getting into work.

Steve Webb: The Government presumably believe that work-focused interviews are in the interests of disabled people themselves. They also tell us repeatedly that up to 1 million disabled people are not working and want to work. If the interviews are good for disabled people—and there are lots of them out there who want to work—why do the Government need to blackmail those people by threatening to cut their benefit if they will not turn up for an interview?

Alistair Darling: That is an interesting definition of blackmail.
	The hon. Gentleman knows that a large number of people in this country who have a disability could work, with the right level of support. Our new deals have shown that. There are many people now in work who in the past got absolutely nothing, and they ought to be supported.
	The new system that we are introducing through Jobcentre Plus will mean that everyone of working age, whatever their circumstances, will—as a condition of receiving benefit—have to come for an interview to see what options are available.

Steve Webb: Or else!

Alistair Darling: I make no apology whatever for telling someone aged, say, under 25 who wants to sign on for jobseekers allowance, if there is no reason whatever why that person should not work, "You must come for an interview, and if you can work you ought to work." If the Liberals do not believe in that, I part company with them. As for people with disabilities, we have said yes, they must come for an interview, and yes, they must see what options are available to them. No one is saying "You must take a job, no matter what the circumstances are." We are saying "At the very least, you ought to know what options are available to you."
	The point is simple. If there are 1 million people out there who want to work, we as a Government owe it to them to ensure that they receive the right help and assistance. I am astonished that the Liberals should be against that.

Angela Browning: What future plans has the Secretary of State for the therapeutic earnings rule to assist people with lifelong disabilities to obtain paid employment?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Lady has raised that issue on many occasions, and because of her own experience she is anxious for us to improve the situation. I am as well, but unfortunately this afternoon I am not in a position to tell the hon. Lady anything with a view to making an imminent announcement. I assure her, however, that I am keeping the situation under review.

Anne Begg: As we roll out the new deal for disabled people, the standard of personal advisers is crucial to ensuring that disabled people are given the right advice. That has already been mentioned this afternoon. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the training of advisers is of the highest quality, and that they are well trained in understanding the difficulties and anxieties experienced by many disabled people in regard to seeking employment—although they desperately want to work?

Alistair Darling: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. A heavy duty is placed on those who advise, and it is important for them to know the rules so that they can offer all the help that is available. As for the new deal for disabled people, which has only just been rolled out nationally, the fact that just under 40 per cent. of people have gone into work shows that these initiatives work.

David Willetts: The Secretary of State is right: it is important for us to do all that we can to help disabled people into work. Will he confirm that the number of people claiming incapacity benefit is now at its highest for three years? There is a clear upward trend.
	Does the Secretary of State agree that it is no good expecting even more medical tests when the Government cannot deliver the medical tests that are required already? Will he confirm that the last Minister for disabled people, whom he caused to be sacked, was right when he said this?
	"Seventy-three per cent. of those tested were recommended by the doctor for re-testing within 18 months."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 15 April 1999; c. 786.]
	Talking about tests after three years is not really relevant, when the Government cannot even deliver the tests that are recommended after 18 months. How many medical tests are there now, within the 18 months recommended?
	Does the Secretary of State agree that the right way forward is to deliver the conditions that already exist in regulations and are not being properly enforced, rather than causing unnecessary distress to disabled people by changing regulations yet again when the current ones cannot be made to work?

Alistair Darling: I do not want to be churlish, but the last Minister for the disabled is still a Minister in this Government, albeit in a different Department.
	I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his reappointment, if congratulation is appropriate. Perhaps he felt that he had no choice but to soldier on, despite the difficulties that he ran into in the last Parliament.
	The object of our proposals is to ensure that people on incapacity benefit have the opportunity to be advised on their benefit entitlement, as well as on work opportunities, where appropriate. The problem is that too many people go on to incapacity benefit and are simply written off. They do not get the help and advice that they want.
	Medical examinations are indeed appropriate and we are not proposing to change the regime in that regard, although the administration of the examinations is being improved.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about trends in incapacity benefit. The number of people in receipt of the benefit has gone up in the past year or two, mainly because there are now more women with contribution conditions. I do not understand it to be the Conservative policy—yet—to strip people of their contribution conditions.

Job Action Teams

Ernie Ross: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of action teams for jobs.

Nick Brown: Action teams for jobs have already helped more than 13,500 people into work in some of the most disadvantaged parts of our country. The two key elements to the teams' success are the outreach work and local flexibility. The teams focus on people's abilities, help people into work whenever that is possible and provide the right support when it is not. I am pleased to confirm that one of the new teams announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier today is starting operations in my hon. Friend's constituency today.

Ernie Ross: We have been waiting for this to happen and working closely with our colleagues in the Employment Service. Following my experience of 18 miserable years under the Tories, one change is very clear. Importantly for people who are seriously disadvantaged and need to find employment, people in the Employment Service can now do the job that they were employed to do: get people into work. The atmosphere in the Dundee and Tayside office is one that is likely to lead to success.

Nick Brown: My hon. Friend's remarks echo my own experience. When I visit Employment Service premises, I find a willingness to accept the Government's new proactive approach, and indeed to do so with enthusiasm. The new elements are well known. Local flexibility and the outreach work of the action teams are proving very effective, and I am sure that that will be the case in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Graham Brady: If the local flexibility available in the employment zones is effective, why does the Minister not extend it throughout the country?

Nick Brown: We are testing a range of service delivery mechanisms, and of course it is our objective to roll out Jobcentre Plus, which contains many of the elements, and draws on the experience, of the ONE pilots and the action zones.

Pensioners (Capital Limits)

Bridget Prentice: What progress is being made to reform social security regulations governing capital limits for pensioners.

Ian McCartney: We have already taken steps to reform capital limits for pensioners. In addition, the pension credit consultation paper set out our proposals for abolishing both the capital limits and the assumed £1 a week rate of return for every £250 of capital for pensioners.

Bridget Prentice: I am grateful for that reply, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have constituents, as we no doubt all do, who, as pensioners, fall between two stools. What guarantee can he give that, when the pension credit is introduced, people who have some savings do not lose out on other benefits?

Ian McCartney: That is a fair point, and we have two measures in place to respond to it. On top of the guaranteed minimum, we will pay a cash award of about 60p for every £1 of a second pension or savings income, which solves the first problem that my hon. Friend highlighted, concerning individuals with modest savings or small second pensions being disadvantaged because of their thriftiness. Secondly, when more pensioners get more help through the pension credit, that will generally mean more help through housing benefit and/or council tax benefit. We are considering what changes are needed in the design of housing and council tax benefit to ensure that they complement the more generous rules that will apply in pension credit.

Annabelle Ewing: While we are dealing with pensioner benefits, I should like to ask the Minister whether the reports that appeared in the Scottish press at the weekend—to the effect that the Secretary of State has refused on behalf of the United Kingdom Government to continue to pay attendance allowance with respect to Scottish pensioners following the implementation in the Scottish Parliament of the proposals on free personal care for the elderly—are correct. If so, does that not breach the current principle of the universality of benefits throughout the United Kingdom and hence amount to discrimination instigated by the United Kingdom Government against Scottish pensioners under the current benefit system?

Ian McCartney: I give the hon. Lady an absolute assurance: we are keeping the United Kingdom benefit system. That is the whole point of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's contribution to the debate. I assure the hon. Lady that the Government, working closely with our colleagues in Scotland, do not intend to disturb the arrangements within the United Kingdom and the national benefits system.

Frank Roy: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, at the moment, pensioners in this country who have received incapacity benefit move from that benefit to their old-age pension. Some 160,000 people have done so this year. They are paid incapacity benefit until their 60th or 65th birthday. However, is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a week between their birthday and the date on which they receive the benefit of their state pension? Does he agree that that anomaly should be looked at as quickly as possible?

Ian McCartney: I will write a note to my hon. Friend. That anomaly has always existed, but those involved get the income that they are entitled to, and I shall send my hon. Friend a chart showing how that works.

Carers

John Robertson: What plans he has to introduce benefit payments for carers.

Maria Eagle: The Government already pay benefits to carers. Last autumn, the Government announced a package of measures, worth more than £500 million over three years, to enhance the current social security provision for carers. Two of the measures were implemented in April this year. The invalid care allowance earnings limit was increased from £50 to £72 a week and the carer premium, paid through the income-related benefits, was increased from £14.15 to £24.40.
	Three other measures require more substantial legislative changes. They are the extension of claims to ICA to people aged 65 and over; the extension of entitlement to ICA for up to eight weeks after the death of the person being cared for; and a welcome change in the name of the benefit to carers allowance to reflect more closely the purpose of the benefit. We propose to introduce those measures by means of a regulatory reform order as soon as possible. In fact, the consultation on that matter ends today.

John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. I welcome the fact that the Department is consulting on this matter, and the proposed change of name from invalid care allowance to carers allowance will benefit people because it is a simpler name to understand. One of the problems has been that people have not understood what a carer is, and the people concerned found the word "invalid" derogatory. However, I am concerned that the allowances of those who claim benefits for the people who are disabled, or who are being cared for, are affected by the fact that the carer receives the ICA. That has caused some problems for the people who receive the allowance, and they feel that they are being treated unfairly. Will my hon. Friend comment?

Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend suggests that those who are cared for may lose benefit when ICA is given to the carer. The only circumstance in which I think that that occurs is where the severe disability premium is withdrawn from someone who suddenly acquires a carer when they did not have a carer before. The severe disability premium is paid to enable people to pay for care where they do not have a carer. Therefore, if they suddenly acquire a carer, or a family member comes to care for them, they are no longer eligible for that benefit, but the carer may be eligible for ICA. I do not consider that that is a case of benefit being withdrawn because a carer receives benefit; it is simply another example of the overlapping benefit rules, about which those of us who are becoming familiar with the field know only too well.

Julian Lewis: In the Minister's initial reply, she said that the Government intend to end as soon as possible the discrimination against people who become carers for the first time after the age 65. That is very welcome, but does the hon. Lady recall that, following nearly a year of pressure from the Conservative Opposition, one of her predecessors in office gave a pledge to do that
	"as soon as the legislative timetable permits"?—[Official Report, 30 November 2000; Vol. 357, c. 857W.]
	When will that actually happen?

Maria Eagle: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the pressure coming from the Conservative Opposition. Pressure was not needed, because this is something that we have wanted to do. However, the hon. Gentleman is well aware that legislative time in this place is at a premium.
	We will implement the change by using a regulatory reform order and, now that the consultation is over, that order will be laid as soon as possible. The hon. Gentleman may be aware of the new procedure by which the order goes to the Deregulation Committee, which will have 60 days to consider it. Thereafter, it will be subject to the super-affirmative procedure, which I certainly looking forward to getting my teeth into. I hope that the order will become law shortly thereafter, although of course a similar procedure will be followed in the other place.

Unemployment

Vincent Cable: What assessment he has made of the numbers of people of working age who are able and willing to work but are neither working nor registered as seeking work or as claimants.

Nick Brown: About 4.1 million people of working age are not working or are in receipt of an out-of-work benefit, and we estimate that there are about 500,000 people of working age who are partners of benefit claimants and who are not working, registered for work or claiming benefits themselves.

Vincent Cable: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he not acknowledge that, whereas the claimant count position is improving, the figure of 4 million is growing and that the problem particularly affects men? Is he aware that 27 per cent. of all men aged between 50 and 64 are out of work and that 30 per cent. of all unskilled men of all ages are out of work? How does he intend to re-prioritise the Government's labour market policies to address their specific needs and particularly the age discrimination element?

Nick Brown: It is precisely that issue with which the new deal is designed to cope. The hon. Gentleman's figures are broadly correct, and it is a tragedy that people of working age are looking to the state benefit system for a form of early retirement.
	As the hon. Gentleman knows probably only too well, such circumstances have come about as a result of the huge shake-out of labour in heavy engineering industries, mining, shipbuilding and steel works in the 1980s, when the then Government were effectively prepared to dump people on to incapacity benefit rather than to try to find them a place in the labour market. This Government reject that approach, believing it to be cruel. We want to help people into employment when they are of working age. That means focusing on the problems of those who are older but who can still find a place in the labour market. It also means making sure that we find them work and, moreover, ensuring that that work remunerates them more than being on benefits ever could.

Brian Iddon: I have a constituent who has been helped through education and who is three quarters of his way through a degree course. A firm has paid his way but, unfortunately, that firm has folded and he is no longer able to complete his course. He has sought the jobseeker's allowance, but has been refused because he wants to study. Will my right hon. Friend's Department examine the jobseeker's allowance regulations positively to enable such people to stay in work and, indeed, improve their employability?

Nick Brown: I am not sure that that is a matter for the jobseeker's allowance regulations, but I promise to consider the case of my hon. Friend's constituent and to examine the issue more generally. It sounds to me as though what he has described is an anomaly, but hardship funds are designed to help in such circumstances. I will ask my office to examine the individual case to see what can be done to help my hon. Friend's constituent.

Drug Rehabilitation

Dari Taylor: What proportion of people on the new deal for 18 to 24-year-olds, who were referred to drug rehabilitation centres in the last 12 months, went on to full-time employment in the north-east region.

Malcolm Wicks: More than 25,000 young people in the north-east have moved into jobs through the new deal. Separate data on the number of them who attended drug rehabilitation centres are not collected. However, we are committed to helping people with drug problems overcome them and move into work. We are therefore launching a £40 million programme of support for drug misusers early next year.

Dari Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but may I say to him that this is a very serious problem in the north-east and, particularly, in my constituency of Stockton, South? In what way does his Department work with the Home Office and the Cabinet Office to ensure that we put together a joined-up strategy so that young people and older people who are drug addicts know that there is help for them and—more important than just help—that there is pride at the end of the line because they will have a job?

Malcolm Wicks: We know that this is a serious problem in most constituencies and that it is complicated. That is why the Government have a joined-up approach across Whitehall. This Department's contribution is a £40 million programme to help to identify those who are drug misusers and bring into the community a co-ordinator to get the services working together, and with the voluntary sector. My hon. Friend is right: we need to work across Whitehall—starting, of course, with young people in our schools.

Pensioner Poverty

Howard Stoate: What progress is being made in combating pensioner poverty.

Alistair Darling: Some 2 million pensioners are now receiving the minimum income guarantee. On average, they are £15 a week better off than they would have been in 1997.

Howard Stoate: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. It is certainly very good news for many pensioners who have lived for years in poverty. What measures can the Government take to improve the uptake of the minimum income guarantee, and approximately how many people might that equate to in my constituency of Dartford who may benefit from the improvements in their incomes?

Alistair Darling: Just over 1,500 pensioners in Dartford receive the minimum income guarantee. We have embarked on a substantial take-up campaign that has resulted in more than 100,000 pensioners throughout the country receiving it, and that group has received on average about £20 a week extra. In addition, the application form for the minimum income guarantee is being reduced to 10 pages and will be available shortly. That and other measures will ensure that more and more pensioners get the money to which they are entitled.

Paul Burstow: Does the Secretary of State accept that the rules governing hospital downrating for pensions and benefits cause considerable hardship and distress for many pensioners? Will he take steps to review that urgently to ensure that the Department for Work and Pensions is not contributing to the Department of Health's problem with bed blocking? People find it difficult to get their benefits back on-line when they have been in hospital for weeks and have had their benefits first reduced and then stopped altogether.

Alistair Darling: I agree that we must do everything possible to ensure that people who ought to be discharged from hospital do not remain there, especially because of a problem with benefits. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that ever since the modern welfare state was established more than 50 years ago measures have been taken to stop the double provision of public funds. All such matters are, of course, kept under review.

Ian Davidson: Does the Secretary of State accept that more work needs to be done on the statistics that relate to the minimum income guarantee? Although the overall increase is welcome, it is not certain that it is evenly spread across the country. In particular, my constituency has experienced difficulties in obtaining figures for those who have claimed the minimum income guarantee, despite substantial take-up campaigns. Does my right hon. Friend accept that it would be helpful to identify those blackspots where a large number of pensioners have not been claiming so that we can focus further attention on them?

Alistair Darling: It is possible to identify the number of pensioners in each constituency who are receiving the minimum income guarantee. Of course, one can never be absolutely sure how many are entitled but do not claim because the state does not necessarily know their circumstances. However, my hon. Friend is right: the next stage of our campaign is to look at those areas where we have reason to believe that there are problems with take-up to ensure that every pensioner who is entitled to the minimum income guarantee receives it. As I said earlier, after the last campaign those pensioners who became entitled to and received the minimum income guarantee were on average £20 a week better off. That is a substantial increase in their income.

Tim Boswell: The Secretary of State will be aware that his Department produced statistics and estimates on benefit take-up as recently as 27 September last. Is he not concerned that while last year 500,000 eligible pensioners were not claiming income support, this year's figure is much nearer 600,000, an increase of 20 per cent? That trend is also reflected in figures for council tax benefit and housing benefit, which are in fact slightly worse.
	Does the Secretary of State not think that the only plausible explanation for that problem, which I am sure concerns and shocks us all, is that the system is becoming ever more complex? Does he not admit that the only possible solution offered by the Government will make the problem even worse?

Alistair Darling: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. In the report that he quotes, the estimated number of pensioners who fail to claim income support is between 300,000 and 600,000. The report itself says that care should be taken when interpreting the take-up statistics as they come from estimates from data that are less than perfect. That particular series of statistics has its limitations precisely because of the very wide range in the estimates.
	I assume that for the purposes of this question the hon. Gentleman is in favour of more pensioners receiving the money to which they are entitled, and I agree with him that we need to do more to identify pensioners who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee. However, I note that the new leader of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), said of the minimum income guarantee:
	"I can think of nothing to recommend it."—[Official Report, 15 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 740.]
	That is a very odd way to refer to a policy that gives pensioners an average increase of £15 a week.

Benefit Take-up

Bill Tynan: What discussions he has had with pensioner organisations about initiatives to inform older people of their eligibility for pensions and benefits.

Ian McCartney: My Department, in partnership with organisations working with older people, is developing a series of initiatives designed to encourage take-up of the minimum income guarantee, including an information leaflet about the guarantee which has been available since the beginning of September. From today, when people claim their retirement pension, we will ask them questions to see whether they are entitled to the minimum income guarantee as well.

Bill Tynan: I thank my right hon. Friend for the information that he has given, particularly about people going into retirement. I am sure that many hon. Members, like myself, have pensioners in their constituency who are failing to receive their entitlement, especially the minimum income guarantee. I suggest that additional resources are made available for a benefits check to target existing pensioners. That would assist in identifying those who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee and ensuring that they receive it.
	As part of his campaign, will my right hon. Friend visit Hamilton, South so that we can make sure that my constituents are exposed to the best possible publicity and receive the benefits to which they are entitled?

Ian McCartney: Following a request by my hon. Friend and his local council leader, I have agreed to go to his constituency on 8 November to discuss the pensions strategy and our wider plans for older people. [Laughter.] I do not know why hon. Members are laughing. Is that not what Ministers are supposed to do—go out and meet our fellow citizens? The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) used to jeer when 2 million pensioners could not get a penny out of the last Government and were living in absolute poverty. This Government are going out to find those 2 million pensioners and give them their entitlement, which they were denied by the hon. Gentleman's party when it was in power.
	I can tell my hon. Friend that we are improving uptake and increasing the resources devoted to that. Secondly, when the pensioner credit becomes available, all pensioners aged 65 and over will, through a new pension service, be invited to participate in a discussion so that we can ascertain immediately whether they are entitled to the pensioner credit. Some 5.5 million pensioner households will benefit from that policy.

Michael Fabricant: A little while ago, the Secretary of State spoke, quite rightly, about employers' prejudice against people with disabilities. Does the Minister agree that there is also employer prejudice against people who are older but below pension age? What steps is he taking to ensure that businesses employ people under 65, who have something very valuable to offer, thus taking them off benefits?

Ian McCartney: If that is the hon. Gentleman's job application to the new leader of his party, I will take it up on his behalf.
	The Government are very committed to working with employers to eradicate age discrimination. We will legislate by 2006 to prevent such discrimination in the workplace. In the meantime, through our code of practice and the national "Age Positive" campaign, which works with employers, significant numbers of older workers are returning to the work force for the first time in many years. A range of employers who would normally make workers redundant because of their age are changing their practice. In addition, advertisements that discriminate on the basis of age have almost disappeared. We have given employers a warning that there is only a short time before such adverts cannot be used.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman does find a place on the Conservative Front Bench before he reaches the age of 75. If he has not done so by 2006, he will be able to use legislation introduced by this Government to do something about it.

James Purnell: One of my constituents recently lost her partner in a car crash. He had two pensions: an occupational pension, which will pay my constituent a pension, and a pension from the Teachers Pensions Agency, which does not recognise unmarried partners. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to encourage the TPA and other public sector pension organisations to recognise unmarried partners?

Ian McCartney: This is a tragic case. There is a meeting today to discuss such issues with the Department. There has been a Government strategy across the public sector in order to try to improve pension arrangements. Changes could include the potential for additional contributions from those in the scheme. However, areas of discrimination are being addressed, and I shall write to my hon. Friend about the matter following the discussions.

David Willetts: Will the Minister confirm that pension organisations are very worried that older people will not receive their benefits if they cannot cash giro cheques at their local post offices? There is much uncertainty about the Government's plans for a universal bank. I hope that the Minister will today end that uncertainty by answering three specific questions. First, is the universal bank proposal still on track? Secondly, has the Department been asked to take the lead in a review of the universal bank proposal? Thirdly, how many benefit claimants do the Government expect to open universal bank accounts? Following his rather cavalier answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy), it would be helpful to receive real answers and not be referred to a chart.

Ian McCartney: First, the universal bank is going to happen. Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is overseeing the programme. Thirdly, thank goodness we are a Labour Government. If the Tory Government had still been in office, there would not only be no universal bank but no post office for people to go to.

Unemployment

Brian White: What plans he has to enable the hardest-to-help unemployed people find work.

Nick Brown: The range of new deals helps disadvantaged groups to move from welfare into work. We are increasing the number of action teams for jobs and extending employment zones, which help people in the most deprived areas. The sum of £40 million has been allocated to the progress-to-work initiative, to help unemployed drug users, which will start early next year. Further funding is also being arranged through the new deals to pilot further specialist help for others, including homeless people and ex-offenders.

Brian White: As my right hon. Friend will be aware, in a city such as the one that I represent, which has benefited from the ONE pilot scheme and where unemployment is now less than 1 per cent., employers are having to recruit from as far afield as Nottingham and Derby. There is a small group of people who employers will not employ, even though they have been through most of the options that the jobcentre can provide. Such people have lost out on national vocational qualifications and so on, and cannot gain employment even in areas such as ours. Will the Minister ensure that, under new procedures and when Jobcentre Plus is rolled out, the plight of that small but vulnerable group is addressed and that there is more flexibility in the system so that they do not lose out further?

Nick Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I passionately believe that we should not overlook a group of our fellow citizens who are disadvantaged in the labour market. It is the role of the second wave of new deals to help such groups, and we intend to do so regardless of changing labour market circumstances.

David Heath: To follow the question asked by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), does the right hon. Gentleman agree that some of the most difficult people to get into employment are those who live in very rural areas and that the biggest single impediment that they face is transport—to either employment opportunities or vocational training? Will he speak to his colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills to make it easier for people to get to vocational training centres where public transport is not available? Will he reject the present moped scheme restrictions, which do not include large parts of my very rural constituency simply because people live in towns—towns where there are no vocational training opportunities?

Nick Brown: The hon. Gentleman is right that there are special features to social exclusion in rural areas. There are a range of reasons for that. It is too simplistic to say that it is just about transport problems, although they are clearly part of it. It is the Government's hope that a more proactive approach—through Jobcentre Plus and action zones where they apply—will carry with it a range of local flexibilities that are tailored to address precisely the problems that the hon. Gentleman identifies.

David Cairns: My right hon. Friend may be aware that one of the 15 pathfinder Jobcentre Plus programmes is in my constituency, in Greenock. Does he agree that to tackle residual and long-term unemployment it is important not only that the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency work together, but that all the other agencies in the field, chiefly the Inland Revenue, the careers service and local authorities, also work in partnership?

Nick Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is essential that public services work across departmental boundaries toward a common objective—helping those who are most disadvantaged in the labour market.

Anti-terrorism Measures

David Blunkett: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the legislative steps necessary to counter the threat from international terrorism.
	First, I pay tribute to all those in the security and emergency services and elsewhere who have already risen to the challenge over the past five weeks, and all those who have assisted in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attack in New York itself.
	It is the first job of Government and the essence of our democracy that we safeguard rights and freedoms, the most basic of which is to live safely and in peace. It is now necessary that we look afresh, in a measured and proportionate manner, at whether our legal framework is adequate and our security sufficient.
	Although the nature and the level of the threat is different from what was previously envisaged, wholesale revision of our anti-terrorism laws is unnecessary. That is also the view of the law enforcement agencies. However, we do need specific and targeted measures, which is why I intend to introduce an emergency anti-terrorism Bill. I am determined to strike a balance between respecting our fundamental civil liberties and ensuring that they are not exploited.
	Through those measures, we will reinforce action against the perpetrators of organised crime, drugs and people trafficking. Therefore, in the next few days we will introduce separate measures in the Proceeds of Crime Bill, which will now be complemented by anti-terrorist legislation. Terrorists use organised crime and trade in human misery to finance their activities. The tough new financial controls in the emergency Bill will help us to staunch the flow of terrorist funding.
	The emergency legislation will build on the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Bill to deal specifically with terrorist finance through monitoring and freezing the accounts of suspected terrorists. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will spell out in more detail measures on the seizure of cash within this country and strict reporting requirements on the financial institutions. Separately, a new anti-terrorist finance unit is to be established in conjunction with my right hon. Friend under the auspices of the National Criminal Intelligence Service.
	The events of 11 September have led to a new determination to co-operate at European and international level. Terrorists do not respect national boundaries. In line with the Europe-wide endeavour, I intend to include in the emergency Bill an enabling power to allow implementation by affirmative order of measures from the Justice and Home Affairs Council on police and judicial co-operation.
	Regrettably, there are those who are prepared to exploit the tensions created by the global threat. Racists, bigots, and hotheads, as well as those associating with terrorists, are prepared to use the opportunity to stir up hate. It is therefore my intention to introduce new laws to ensure that incitement to religious, as well as racial, hatred will become a criminal offence. I also intend to increase the current two-year maximum penalty to seven years.
	I am examining wider powers in relation to incitement by people in the United Kingdom, against groups or individuals overseas. I am also examining additional powers in relation to conspiracy. None of those measures is intended to stifle free speech, dialogue, or debate. Fair comment is not at risk, only the incitement to hate.
	Obtaining good intelligence and being able to target and track potential terrorists is essential. We need comprehensive powers to require best practice to become the norm. This legislation will therefore facilitate the exchange of information in two key areas. It will ensure that law enforcement agencies can access vital information on passengers and freight. It will also enable customs and revenue officers to pass information to the police. These provisions will remove barriers which currently prevent the exchange of information in the fight against terrorism. These will be carefully targeted measures designed to protect the public, not affecting the privacy of law-abiding citizens.
	We will introduce measures to enable communication service providers to retain data generated in the course of their business, by which I mean the recording of calls made and other data, not the content. We will work with the industry on a code of practice. I wish to thank those who have co-operated so well over the past five weeks in the industry.
	I think that we all accept that there is a compelling need for more effective powers to exclude and remove suspected terrorists from our country. We rightly pride ourselves on the safe haven that we offer to those genuinely fleeing terror. But our moral obligation and love of freedom does not extend to offering hospitality to terrorists. That is why, both in the emergency terrorism Bill and in a separate extradition measure, I will ensure that we have robust and streamlined procedures.
	I believe that it will be possible to achieve these changes without substantial alteration to the Human Rights Act 1998. Nevertheless, it may well be necessary, using article 15, to derogate from article 5 of the European convention. That would allow the detention of foreign nationals whom we intend to remove from the country, and who are considered a threat to national security. This would occur in circumstances falling outside those permitted by article 5 of the European convention on human rights, but within the scope of article 1f of the 1951 refugee convention.
	I am also looking to take power to deny substantive asylum claims to those who are suspected of terrorist associations, and to streamline the existing judicial review procedures while retaining the right of appeal. Appropriate safeguards would apply to any such derogation.
	A review of extradition procedure had been undertaken by the Government before 11 September. I intend to bring forward a separate substantive measure to modernise and place our laws in the context of the new international situation. Streamlining, while retaining rights of appeal, will form part of this measure. I also intend, following an announcement to the House in the weeks ahead, to modernise our nationality and asylum system.
	There are four other measures to which I wish to refer today. The first, which relates to the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, will strengthen security at airports and for passengers. Powers both within restricted areas at airports and aboard aircraft will all be strengthened.
	In addition, I can announce that we will expand the role and jurisdiction of the British Transport police, together with those working on enforcement from the Ministry of Defence and the Atomic Energy Authority. We will ask the House to agree to widen their powers beyond the boundaries of particular sites. I am also seeking powers to provide the police and customs services with the authority to demand the removal of facial covering or gloves. That is a basic requirement to enable identification where finger printing or other biometric tests are important.
	I am also including in the Bill clauses on nuclear, chemical, biological and radiological materials, generally described as weapons of mass destruction, which will cover the intention to use, produce, possess or participate in unauthorised transfers of those materials. At the time of the millennium, a great deal of work was undertaken to ensure the security of key utilities. I want to assure the House that both in the Civil Contingencies Committee, and more widely, we have examined and put in place further work to update our preparedness, preventive action and remedial steps, should they be necessary.
	The United Kingdom has some of the world's best counter-terrorist expertise. Working together with international partners, we are taking every step to protect ourselves. Those plans are continually reviewed and tested. There is no immediate intelligence pointing to a specific threat to the United Kingdom, but we remain alert, domestically as well as internationally.
	I know that many in the House will agree that strengthening our democracy and reinforcing our values is as important as the passage of new laws. If, therefore, we do not rise to the challenge and provide through our democratic institutions the commitment and will to face down terrorists, our economy, social well-being and quality of life will suffer. The legislative measures which I have outlined today will protect and enhance our rights, not diminish them. Justice for individuals and minorities are reaffirmed, and justice for the majority and the security of our nation will be secured.
	On 11 September, families lost their loved ones, and the threat of terrorism touched us all. If we fail now to take the necessary action to protect our people, future generations will never forgive us. That is why I am asking for the wholehearted support of both sides of the House in demonstrating that this Parliament, our democracy and our judicial system are capable of rising to the challenge, and of doing so swiftly and effectively.

Oliver Letwin: I should like to thank the Home Secretary for his courtesy in giving us an advance copy of the statement and a briefing. He will be aware that, as far as his principal objectives are concerned, he has our support. Like him, we wish to see changes in our law that will increase the effectiveness of domestic measures against terrorism.
	We share the Government's view that legislation is required to increase the effectiveness of our counter-terrorist enforcement. However, does the Home Secretary agree that, too often in the past, over-hasty legislation has proved inoperable in practice? Does he agree that the best guard against that danger is detailed scrutiny, which teases out the implications of the legislation to determine both whether it will be effective and whether it poses any undue threat to our fundamental liberties? Can he assure us that those critical measures at this critical time will be debated in detail on the Floor of the House? Is he aware that we will resist using the emergency legislation as a means of addressing problems of law enforcement outside the field of terrorism?
	We are delighted that the Home Secretary accepts that the duty of Parliament in a crisis of the kind that we now face is to maintain a careful balance between public safety and individual freedom. We welcome his agreement that public safety demands changes to the law that will enable him to refuse entry to those foreign nationals whom he judges a risk to national security. But does he agree that he also needs to be able to remove such dangerous individuals from this country if they are already here?
	In the light of the Chahal case, the Singh and Singh case and other jurisprudence associated with the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act, does the Home Secretary accept that such removal of dangerous individuals poses a significant legislative problem? Does he accept that the internment or indefinite detention powers that he signalled in his statement today may not provide a workable means of avoiding that problem? Will he confirm the view taken by his predecessor that Parliament can legislate to alter the effect of the Human Rights Act?
	With reference to laws against incitement to religious hatred, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that although the whole House will wholeheartedly agree with his desire to protect vulnerable communities—and in particular, vulnerable Muslim communities during the present crisis—the Opposition will need to be persuaded that the drafting of the legislation will achieve this admirable effect without, as he so rightly said, curtailing proper freedom of speech?
	Turning to the proposed EU framework directives, does the Home Secretary share our view that there is a fundamental difference between the proposed directive on combating terrorism and the proposed directive on European arrest warrants? We all support the principle of the proposed directive on combating terrorism. That will force other EU counties to adopt legislation parallel to our Terrorism Act 2000. But does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we certainly should not let the current crisis drive us into abandoning either the principle of habeas corpus or the principle of a person being presumed innocent until proven guilty?
	Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the proposed directive on European arrest warrants might threaten those principles? Does he acknowledge that many of us, in all parts of the House, will have very grave concerns about implementing those directives through affirmative orders? Does he agree that there should be urgent review by the Scrutiny Committee?
	Does the Home Secretary recognise the strength of the case for introducing sunset clauses to legislation in all these difficult areas, so that the House, and Parliament as a whole, can have the opportunity with the benefit of hindsight regularly to reassess both the effectiveness of the legislation and its effect on individual freedom?
	We will engage constructively with the Government as the legislation proceeds, but we shall perform the proper role of an Opposition under these circumstances—probing, inquiring and bringing likely effects to light. Let us hope that the combined efforts of all of us in this House and in the other place will be sufficient to produce a rarity in British legislative history—fast law that is also good law.

David Blunkett: I welcome the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) to his new Front-Bench portfolio. I look forward to the sort of brief but robust exchanges that I had with his predecessor, but perhaps at a lower pitch than was usual then. I welcome the general principle of the hon. Gentleman's approach, although I should hate to be opposite him on a day when he was facing down legislation, rather than welcoming it.
	We are not intent on taking away rights or denying people normal opportunities through judicial process, but we are endeavouring to respond to the new situation. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, with the agreement of the Leader of the House, we will look to take the legislation on the Floor of the House. We want to ensure that the areas that are identified with the Opposition as being key for debate have sufficient time allocated to them to allow proper debate, in order to reassure the entire House and the public outside that we have achieved the right balance between the need to act swiftly and the ability to draw up legislation that will be lasting.
	I am happy to consider reaffirmation of aspects of the Bill that will be identified as we take the legislation through the House. That seems sensible in the case of emergency legislation. I am also prepared to consider proposals from the Opposition as well as from Labour Members that would enhance or improve what we are doing.
	It is worth spending a moment on the points that the hon. Gentleman raised in relation to two matters, which are different but related. The first concerns extradition where we have treaty agreements with other countries and where it is possible in all present circumstances to extradite those who are required for due trial. The second concerns people whom we are seeking to eject from our country although they have not committed a crime here, but whose deportation would be desirable, given the threat that we believe they pose.
	On the first matter, we have very clear treaties with main partner countries. There is no problem—indeed, there has been no problem—under section 11 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 in relation to our European partners. There would be no problem on arrest warrants either, because to carry out an arrest is not to deny someone fair trial or to presume them guilty before trial has taken place; it is to respect mutual recognition of our judicial and policing systems throughout the European Union—something that goes back a long way, but which has taken a long time to recognise and to get through the system.
	Deportation, like preventing people who are feared to be terrorists and who are travelling through our country from claiming asylum, is another matter. It seems to us that when a third safe country cannot be found, holding such people—with proper rights of appeal and the opportunity for a return to their case—is preferable to sending them back to certain death when their guilt has not been ascertained. We are not, therefore, seeking to withdraw from or deratify the ECHR, which would be necessary in terms of denying article 3. As I said, we may derogate from article 5, while continuing to hold to article 1f of the refugee convention, in order to have the ability better to protect ourselves while protecting appeal rights.
	The speeding up of judicial review in both processes will be absolutely crucial. It is absurd that it can take five, seven or even 10 years, as happened in one case, to extradite someone from this country. That is not justice; it is playing monkey business with our judicial framework and processes.
	I can assure the House that we have thought long and hard. We have not rushed into these measures. In the next few weeks, there will be time to contemplate as well as to scrutinise the legislation that we are introducing. We want to get it right because we have obligations to our own people and to our international requirements. If we can get it right, we will have managed to sweep away some of the nonsense that has been found in recent weeks to exist in our system. I appeal to our judiciary to work with us to ensure that democracy in all its guises can operate fairly and openly, rather than be held up to ridicule by those who should be upholding it.

Chris Mullin: I am sure that all sensible people will welcome any new measures intended to make our dealing with terrorism more effective, but I should like to underline the point made by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin): there is a long history of anti-terrorism legislation being introduced in haste and repented at leisure. We will need time properly to scrutinise whatever measures my right hon. Friend puts before the House. I welcome the fact that the measures are being introduced after mature consideration and not in the immediate aftermath of the terrible events of 11 September.
	On the new definition of terrorism proposed by the Commission, has my right hon. Friend noticed that, under proposed article 5.3, sanctions such as community service for alleged terrorists are listed? The EC may be proposing to cast the net a little wide. Will he ensure that whatever definition is finally agreed is robust, watertight and confined to dealing with terrorists and not with the other people who might, from time to time, get up the noses of the established order?
	My right hon. Friend mentioned the need to deny asylum to those suspected of having terrorist associations. What level of evidence will be required and who will assess that evidence? Finally, he said that he was examining additional powers in relation to conspiracy. Will he give us a clue about what is in his mind in that respect?

David Blunkett: I welcome my hon. Friend's approach of wanting to ensure that we get it right, and not just quickly. I am a great enthusiast for active citizenship, but I had not envisaged engaging terrorists in good works in our community as a suitable punishment in Sheffield or Sunderland. I am therefore happy to affirm that we shall take appropriate and proportionate measures, and press them on our European partners.
	We are looking with the Crown Prosecution Service to examine ways in which those who are not directly engaged in fundraising, organising or inciting by pronouncement may be involved in conspiracy by supporting or succouring those who are engaged in terrorism. The question of conspiracy would come into play in the case of people who had been engaged, as is alleged about some of those who are currently held throughout the world, in facilitating terrorism through training, providing goods and services or engaging in communication networks with those involved in terrorist activity. I am working with the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor on the best way of tackling that.

Simon Hughes: I thank the Home Secretary for his statement and briefings. He can rest assured that the Liberal Democrats will support the Government when they introduce well considered legislation, which is necessary in the current emergency, and targeted specifically at tackling terrorism. However, if the legislation is not immediately necessary and has nothing to do with terrorism, Liberal Democrats will defend the liberties of the individual citizen robustly. I anticipate that that applies to other quarters in the House as well.
	Let me ask about process. Will a draft Bill be presented as early as possible? If so, we can ensure that we try to get it right as soon as possible. Will the Home Secretary undertake to consult the Joint Committee on Human Rights early to ensure that there are no breaches of our human rights obligations, not only in the Government's view but in that of all parties in both Houses? Will he follow the provisions in previous legislation for emergency powers to have limited time effects whenever possible, and to continue only if Parliament agrees?
	The statement contained a surprising element: the implication that European legislation could get through both Houses of Parliament, without proper debate and scrutiny, simply on the basis of an affirmative order proposed by the Government. It is most important that the Home Secretary confirm that he did not mean that. It is not acceptable to any hon. Member, even ardent Europeans, because legislation should come through this place, not by a Minister putting a yes or no question to Parliament.
	On human rights, will the Home Secretary confirm that he will try to avoid derogation from the European convention whenever possible? Does he seriously propose to bring back internment throughout the United Kingdom? One of his suggestions could be interpreted to mean that.
	On asylum, will the right hon. Gentleman make it absolutely clear that he will uphold the 1951 convention and that all who have a right under it to seek asylum and put their case here will retain it after the legislation is enacted? Will he make sure that, on controversial matters such as human rights and asylum, there will always be the opportunity for a judicial review of Ministers' and officials' decisions, and that no one will be precluded from going to court to challenge a decision by the Executive?
	Incitement to racial hatred is an important issue. I share with the Home Secretary and others the view that its prevention should not restrict the right to criticise other faiths or people and views of other faiths. What has happened to the Government's proposal to introduce an equality Bill to guarantee equality of all faiths? Legislation on incitement to racial hatred has existed for 15 years, but barely a prosecution has occurred. Will the right hon. Gentleman reflect on the fact that legislation is pointless if it is never implemented?
	Lastly, the Home Secretary rightly paid tribute to the emergency services. We join him in that tribute, but can he assure police services and police authorities throughout the country that they will have the resources that they need to implement the additional measures, and that the civil defence measures are sufficiently resourced and in place? If there is a need to deal with the threat of weapons of mass destruction, are we safe between now and the end of the legislative process or will he introduce other measures to ensure that action is taken immediately against any such terrorist threat?

David Blunkett: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I will discuss the question of resourcing, but I can make it clear that all necessary practical measures will be in place before the legislation reaches the statute book.
	The human rights questions that the hon. Gentleman raised can be answered in the affirmative. Yes, we shall consult the Joint Committee. Yes, we are party to the 1951 convention, as I spelled out. We do not intend to introduce internment, although if a major crisis arose from the terrorist threat, other specific measures would have to be introduced, as has been the case since the second world war. Governments have always held that in reserve.
	On the question of secondary legislation, I did not know that it had ever been Liberal Democrat policy that every single measure agreed at European level required primary legislation in the House. It certainly has not been since we joined the European Union and signed the treaty of Rome in 1972. Affirmative and negative orders as well as the European Scrutiny Committee have been used for such measures. I had thought that affirmative orders, which offer the opportunity for debate on the Floor of the House, provided a much more positive way to deal with such matters than do other measures.
	I ask the hon. Gentleman to think again, because we shall grind our own legislative procedures to a standstill and make a nonsense of our partnership in Europe if we do not accept that secondary legislation is required. The matter involves the specific terms that I have laid down, not any old issue at any time, and it is important that we reaffirm that.
	I have dealt with the question of seeking co-operation. I cannot guarantee that we shall be able to publish a draft Bill, because of the speed at which we are trying to act, but I shall engage the opposition parties and those in the House with a particular interest as quickly and effectively as I can.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House will understand that there are three other statements to be made. Short questions will allow the Home Secretary to give a short reply, which would be a great help.

Joan Walley: I broadly welcome the proposals that the Home Secretary has brought to the House, but may I press him further on the nuclear, biological and chemical issues to which he referred? Does he intend to provide a statutory basis for emergency planning, and will he consult the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health on how the measures will be drawn up before the legislation is debated here?

David Blunkett: I am happy to give the assurance that we shall consult. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs has been doing sterling work on the civil contingencies side of our operation and we want to ensure that we consult such groups.
	On my hon. Friend's first question, it came as a surprise that although the Chemical Weapons Act 1996 gives substantial powers in relation to the movement, possession and use of chemicals, we have not done the same in the areas that I have outlined, in particular radiological aspects. Irrespective of what happened on 11 September, it is time that we had those powers in place. We have the opportunity to move quickly on the measures, some of which were in preparation, and they can be put in place speedily at this timely moment.

Kenneth Clarke: While we all wish to reserve the right to scrutinise in detail this massive legislation, may I welcome the Home Secretary's announcement about tackling the problems of extradition? I well remember expressing my frustration about them when I held his office because of the archaic procedures and protracted litigation that often occurs.
	Although the right hon. Gentleman may have to confine fast-track emergency legislation to terrorist offences, does he accept that there is an extremely good case for tackling the problem of extradition in almost all serious offences? There is no good reason why people accused of serious violence or serious organised crime should not speedily be returned to the jurisdiction of any country that respects the rule of law to face serious charges. Will he try to maintain progress on a Europe-wide arrest warrant, so long as all member states have satisfactory safeguards on personal liberty and the due process of law?
	Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman propose to remove the Home Secretary's role in extradition cases? Although that sounds attractive, in practice it encourages people to raise political issues and bring political lobbying to bear on him and those who hold similar office in other jurisdictions, which can have most unfortunate and delaying consequences.

David Blunkett: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his supportive words. I hope that the European arrest warrant will be dealt with by the beginning of December at the Laeken Council. It will then be possible to make sense of something that is not always operated in the best interests of speed or justice. That will iron out some of the issues that I have read about—Julian Knowles' article in, I think, The Daily Telegraph was about a case in Portugal—and enable us to deal with these matters sensitively and sensibly.
	I agree that there is a good case for examining the withdrawal of the Home Secretary's role from areas where, otherwise, judicial review would be used as a deliberate delaying tactic, without new evidence or new presentation but with the ability to challenge at each stage of the process. As a former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know how difficult it is for a Home Secretary to give up any power.

Diane Abbott: The whole House welcomes the burden of the Home Secretary's statement. As a Hackney MP representing a large Muslim community, I welcome the thinking behind the proposed legislation against incitement to religious hatred, which is designed to check the disgusting and racist attacks on individual Muslims and the Muslim faith. Does my right hon. Friend accept that, because others in Hackney take their religion—or even their lack of religion—extremely seriously, such legislation must not cut across genuine debate?
	On the speeding up of extradition and related matters, the House welcomes the legislation in outline. However, I represent many people who have genuinely fled from torture and oppression, and the burden of proof in these matters will be very important. We would not want the process to be so speeded up and robust that people were returned to torture and perhaps death.

David Blunkett: It certainly would not be my wish, either, that we returned people to torture and death. That would contravene the conventions that were mentioned a few moments ago. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that she seeks in relation to free speech, dialogue, debate and attitude. What we are dealing with, in changing the law on race and religion, is hatred. I take the inference of her intervention, so I shall examine carefully the question of atheists and—I say this wryly—consider whether unpleasant and unhelpful comments about atheists could be included.

Edward Garnier: Can the Home Secretary tell us today whether the new legislation on incitement to racial hatred will include either a definition of religion or a list of those religions against which it will be illegal to incite hatred?

David Blunkett: It is not our intention to include in the Bill a definition of religion, for all the reasons that many in the House will be familiar with. The Attorney-General and I would wish to assure ourselves that we were handling the matter sensitively, bearing in mind the fact that the existing law in relation to race provides for those religions that have a direct relationship with the race of the individual concerned. We want to extend that facility to people who follow Islam and Christianity. The measures will also enable us to deal with those who deliberately use the current law to stir up dissension and hate, which we would all find unacceptable.
	I am examining why existing law has been used so infrequently—in the past decade about four prosecutions a year have been successful—and whether, in conjunction with the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, we should be slightly more robust in what we do about those who, in writing or in speech, deliberately cause hate in our community.

Fiona Mactaggart: Is not this the wrong end of the equation? We have a law against racial discrimination, which was followed by a law against incitement to racial hatred. Perhaps the best way to deal with this issue is to prohibit religious discrimination rather than start with a prohibition on incitement. Has my right hon. Friend considered doing that?

David Blunkett: A long debate about discrimination as opposed to incitement to hatred arose under the Public Order Act 1986. This legislation and the measures that we are taking are designed to deal with specific circumstances regarding the threat of terrorism and the development of protection against terrorists. We want to avoid the exploitation of the situation domestically. My statement about the proposal was made in that context. We are endeavouring to unify our community, and to avoid divisions and conflict at the very moment when we need that unity most of all.

Teddy Taylor: The Home Secretary said that persons who come here from dictatorial and oppressive regimes but who nevertheless promote terrorism will face the option of being detained or going to what he called "a third country." Will he explain how third countries will be approved and selected? Will the Government publish a list of countries that they think are appropriate for housing terrorists?

David Blunkett: That was very entertaining. [Hon. Members: "It needs a serious answer."] If hon. Members want a serious answer, I can tell them that we do not need a list of third countries. A person who is not facing extradition from a specific country because of action taken but whom we want to eject from the country would have a choice. He could be deported to a country of his choice or to a country prepared to take him, or he could be detained in this country under the appeals process. Such people would not be charged with a specific terrorist act overseas: they would be suspected of working with and supporting terrorists. We are proposing measures to protect this country from those people. We are interested in ideas about safe third countries if that choice is not available to an individual. If anyone has a smart answer, I should be grateful to hear from them in the morning.

Bridget Prentice: Like all Members of the House, I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. He will be aware that, as he was speaking, people in the civil liberties lobby were unpicking every word that he said. I ask him to resist that strongly. In a free society, we must take on not only our rights but our responsibilities. Although there must be due scrutiny by the House, some of us believe that there should be an even more robust approach, particularly on judicial review. Will that happen? Most people in this country would agree to sacrifice some of their liberty if it meant greater security.

David Blunkett: It is precisely that balance that we intend to secure. Debate in the House and the securing of freedoms through political action must always be preferable to falling back on those who are not elected, who are not accountable and who often cannot respond quickly or sensitively to a particular threat. That is why parliamentary and participatory democracy is the better safeguard, rather than relying on jurisprudence.

Robert Key: Will the Home Secretary explain why he has not taken this opportunity to legislate on mercenary activity? He will recall that we were promised a Green Paper in November last year, and that in April this year the Government regretted that they had not got around to it. Now we see young British men recruited by British citizens to fight for the Taliban, possibly against British service men and women. Should not the Home Secretary now take the opportunity to legislate?

David Blunkett: I have known the hon. Gentleman for many years in opposition, so let me be frank with him. No, I did not know that we were thinking of producing a Green Paper, but I will go back and read the material, along with all the other tomes that I have been reading over the past five weeks.

David Crausby: I have visited various mosques in my constituency on recent Fridays, and I have heard from the Muslim community overwhelming condemnation of acts of terror. At the same time, however, there has been a free and frank exchange of views with that community, which has not always been in complete agreement with the Government's tactics. Can the Home Secretary reassure me that the measures will be used in the fight against terrorism and religious hatred, and not against that free and frank exchange of views?

David Blunkett: Yes, I can. On my own visits, I too have encountered both support and concern from constituents. We are all in this together, as has been said over and over again in the House by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence and Opposition Members. We are in it together because we are all threatened by terrorism. It is indiscriminate—it singles out no religion, no colour, no creed. That is why everyone in this country will need to back, and should back, the measures that we are taking—we are protecting them and their families as well as our own.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Does the Home Secretary agree that the main lesson from the terror attacks on America was not that existing laws are inadequate, but rather that the security and intelligence services failed to use the existing laws and their powers? Will he be very sceptical about Government agencies and others that demand new intrusion and surveillance powers, and also about the European Union, which has a declared aim of using the existing emergency as a pretext for centralising and advancing its own powers? In presenting his proposals for new laws, will he in each case show that they are required specifically for the struggle against terrorism, that their absence was significantly inhibiting, and that they will be used only in that war on terrorism?

David Blunkett: I certainly agree with the first of those three propositions. There would be no point in measures that were not specific to, and helpful in, combating terrorism. I cannot guarantee the implication of the second question, which was, "Would these measures have materially helped to prevent the attack on the World Trade Centre?" Hindsight is a wonderful thing; what we now need to do is learn the lessons—what went wrong, what measures were not in place, what scrutiny had not been carried out and what failures may have existed following the bombings in Dar-es-Salaam and Kenya in 1998—and thereby ensure that we establish measures and facilities that will prevent such terrorist attacks from occurring again. We should not wait until they do occur again, and then say that perhaps we should have taken measures, including being ready to co-operate with free democracies in the European Union rather than suspecting them of somehow being prepared to use this moment to centralise power. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that what I have encountered in the meetings that I have attended since 11 September is the need to encourage and speed up their processes, not to slow them down.

Tom Levitt: Is my right hon. Friend content that the list of proscribed organisations in the Terrorism Act 2000 is appropriate, or does he intend to review it?

David Blunkett: The list will be kept up to date. The 14 original organisations, and the additional 21 that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary introduced earlier this year when he was Home Secretary, will be reviewed. What is more, we need to ensure that those who fragment within those organisations, change their name and reconfigure themselves in new forms are dealt with adequately and speedily.

Richard Shepherd: I support the Home Secretary in his intention of getting it right rather than merely acting quickly. How does he square that with the use of affirmative orders? A 90-minute debate on the Floor of the House is hardly an appropriate form of scrutiny of matters that touch on the relationship of citizens to the state and the competence of the state over judicial arrangements.

David Blunkett: I am not proposing simply to have 90-minute debates. I am proposing that we have a debate about the nature of the orders that would be consequent on the parent legislation, and that each aspect should then be debated on the Floor of House in a way that has not always been the case for such measures adopted under secondary legislation. We intend to give every opportunity, at a later date, for people to be able to review whether the measures have been effective. The fact that they emanate from co-operation across Europe should be seen as a plus, not a minus, because we want other European countries' co-operation, as much as they need ours, to combat a threat that knows no national boundaries.

Paul Marsden: I welcome my right hon. Friend's aim of outlawing incitement to religious hatred, but in our headlong rush to protect our democracy there is a real danger that we will forgo basic civil liberties. What, specifically, does he mean by retaining data? I am sure that many businesses are very concerned about what that will involve. Personally, I am concerned about whether it means nosing through private e-mails or steaming open letters.

David Blunkett: It explicitly does not mean ferreting through people's private e-mails or steaming open their post. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is the greatest safeguard that exists in any democracy in the world in its updating of earlier provisions for protecting our rights. Having had this job for four months, I am well aware that that is the case. Great care is taken in these matters.
	Being able to find out from service providers—just as we can from telecommunications agencies—whether a phone call was made at a certain time, when we are investigating terrorism, makes sense. Holding that information for a longer period than would otherwise be commercially desirable—it is not information that does not already exist—and reaching agreement with the industry on achieving that, through a code, threatens no one except those who are up to no good.

David Cameron: Given the recent history of legislation on issues such as asylum and extradition being taken apart by the courts, why is the Home Secretary waiting before deciding whether or how much to amend the Human Rights Act 1998? Is not the history of Home Office legal advice on such matters that if officials think that it might possibly be necessary, it almost certainly will be necessary—so why not do it at once? Could we hear a little more of his thinking on that subject?

David Blunkett: Delphically put, if I may say so. I use the word "might" because we want to be absolutely sure when we introduce the legislation that it will be absolutely necessary, in order to achieve our goals, to derogate in the way that I described. I am pretty certain that it will be, given the advice that we have already received and the views of the Attorney-General—but precisely for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman outlined, I want to ensure that we have taken every possible step to get the best legal advice before committing ourselves.

Geraint Davies: In respect of the Proceeds of Crime Bill, may I ask my right hon. Friend about offshore bank accounts, especially in respect of their access and transparency? It is of widespread concern that the proceeds of crime and drug smuggling—therefore, the funding of terror—are funnelled through offshore bank accounts and, indeed, Swiss bank accounts. I wonder whether he would take a fresh look, in consort with the rest of the international community, at achieving such access.

David Blunkett: There are many times when I am very pleased to have my right hon. Friend the Chancellor alongside me, and this afternoon is one of them.

Simon Thomas: On behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, I welcome the Home Secretary's statement. We want to work with the Government and assist them in ensuring that the right legislation is put through the House. To that end, will the right hon. Gentleman agree to work with all parties in the House, not only on the details of the legislation but on the timing and the amount of debate that we will have on the crucial questions that will be asked, such as those that have been asked by many Members today?
	The Home Secretary made some important announcements on extradition. Nevertheless, will he now rule out the extradition of individuals from this country to places where they will face the death penalty? Instead, will he work within multilateral agreements to ensure that such individuals can be extradited, but with a different result? Finally, does he accept that despotic Governments use accusations of terrorism against their genuine opponents who are not guilty of terrorism? What safeguards does he envisage in his legislation so that this country still provides a safe haven for genuine refugees and for people who oppose terrorism and terrorist Governments?

David Blunkett: No genuine refugee has anything to fear from the proposals that I have introduced this afternoon. Those who claim that specialist status, having been picked up on suspicion of terrorist acts or who are in transit through our airports, will still be entitled to go to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and to appeal to the Court of Appeal, so there is no question of taking away their rights. Speeding up the operation of those rights and not suffering fools gladly is how we intend to proceed. We will consult the minor parties as much as possible on the way in which we proceed in the months ahead.
	I think that I have missed one the hon. Gentleman's questions—

Simon Thomas: The death penalty.

Bob Spink: The USA.

David Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman asked about the death penalty, and the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) says "the USA". Where we have specific extradition treaties—we would seek to extend them—they already apply in that way. We have had an extradition treaty with the United States since 1976, and only last Thursday we extradited a man called Qadar, who was wanted in the state of New York. The treaty has been working well. There have been no difficulties with it, and I have agreed with the Attorney-General in the US that we will update it—but as with all extradition treaties with other countries, the provisions that we have in place will safeguard that basic acceptance which the House has affirmed on numerous occasions.

Andrew Miller: Can I press my right hon. Friend a little further on his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley)? Clearly, his statement is very important in relation to the chemicals sector, whether we are dealing with major hazard sites in manufacture, with transport or with chemicals that could be made for an innocent use but misused in the production of chemical weapons. Will he clarify the situation in relation to the movement of and trade in chemicals? Is he satisfied that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who is sitting bedside him, is affording him sufficient resources to address those very serious problems, especially for those who represent the chemicals sector?

David Blunkett: The answer is yes, of course, but the industry has an obligation to ensure security and safety—the two go hand in hand—as has the Health and Safety Commission. However, on this occasion the legislation will be primarily intended to prevent those who should not have access to, possess or move such products from being able to do so. I am surprised that we are catching up with such matters late—but of course, as I said earlier, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Patrick Cormack: Has the Home Secretary detected the widespread support for his general determination to deal with terrorism? However, has he also detected the real unease across the House about the measure dealing with incitement to racial and religious hatred? Will he bear in mind that hasty legislation—one can cite the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 and the legislation introduced after the Omagh bombing—is often bad legislation? Will he please consult very widely, not just in the House but with Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders, before he comes forward with specific proposals?

David Blunkett: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the leaders of all the denominations and faiths with whom we have spoken over the past five weeks are enthusiastically in favour of this measure. We do not, of course, intend to take any freedom away. The freedom to hate and to use that hate to incite others to take actions that destroy our community cannot be in the best interests of democracy. I also believe that it is crucial, for the reasons that have been referred to earlier, that those who face or have experienced religious hate know and feel that we are on their side and are listening and responding to them. We want them to be part of the anti-terrorist drive and the development of a unified voice here and across the world.

Tony McWalter: On that point, will my right hon. Friend accept the real concern about some sort of special protection for religion as it might make his task much more difficult? Of course, religious belief generally is of great benefit to our society, but some religious tenets actually promote hate. For example, in Leviticus and Revelations, homosexuality is called an abomination and people are enjoined not to touch a woman at the time she is unclean. It is important that my right hon. Friend understands that although those beliefs have now been marginalised in St. Mary's church in Hemel Hempstead, they are often not marginalised elsewhere. It is vital that those who do not support them speak out against them and are given the freedom so to do.

David Blunkett: I have answered one or two questions over the past four and half years during which I have been a Minister but, for once, I am speechless. Suffice it to say that I think that few terrorists have engaged with Leviticus.

Mark Prisk: The Home Secretary began his statement by saying how important it was to balance the respect for our liberty with the need to prevent its exploitation. Given that fine balance, will he explain to the House his plans for the exchange of information—often private information—within Government agencies? In particular, what safeguards will he put in place to ensure that law-abiding citizens will have nothing to fear?

David Blunkett: We have a formidable Data Protection Registrar and we have set in place protections unequalled anywhere in the world in terms of ensuring—correctly—people's right to privacy. We have, of course, to ensure that the methods we use are commensurate with the threat that we face. That is the crunch in terms of getting the balance right. In addition, those who seek to protect us and have information at their disposal which, at present, they may be unable to transfer so that it can be used effectively against that threat, need to know that we are unlocking that barrier. That is what we are seeking to do, and if we do not do it future generations will simply think that we were fools.

Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that had my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) been on the receiving end of religious hatred, he might take a less academic view of it?
	Is my right hon. Friend also aware that his decision to introduce legislation to turn religious hatred into an offence will be welcomed not only by Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus, but by Jews as well? He may well be aware that even in this fevered situation the story has been circulating that the attack on the World Trade Centre was a Jewish plot, with Jews who were working there advised not to go into work on 11 September. Does he therefore accept that if the Bill is to be introduced—I am glad to hear that it will be—the decision to prosecute should be that of the Attorney-General and not that of the Crown Prosecution Service, which recently admitted to institutionalised racism within its ranks?

David Blunkett: My right hon. Friend puts his finger on issues as quickly and carefully as ever. The Attorney-General will want to lay down key principles in terms of action, but we will want the CPS to be able to take more decisive action at a local level than has been apparent over the past 17 years.

Action Against Financing Terrorism

Gordon Brown: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce measures that seek to cut off the supply of funds to terrorism.
	Those who finance terror are as guilty as those who commit it, so our response to the funding of terrorist acts must be every bit as clear, as unequivocal and as united as our response to the terrorist acts themselves. The action plan that I am placing in the House of Commons Library, which is now available in the Vote Office, arises from concerted work across Governments, and in particular from decisions of the G7 group of Finance Ministers and Central Bank governors on 6 October. It proposes to tighten our law, further empower the police and strengthen co-ordination across the world.
	I can report to the House that having already fully implemented UN Security Council resolutions on the Taliban and on Osama bin Laden, the United Kingdom has now frozen 35 suspect bank accounts, immobilising more than £63 million of suspect terrorist funds. I can also report that by Order in Council, following the latest UN resolution 1373, we have frozen all UK bank accounts associated with the individuals and organisations named in the US Treasury's suspects lists and have already seized in total £180,000 held by those identified in Friday's updated list.
	Our UK domestic controls are already among the best in the world, but as part of the emergency anti-terrorism Bill announced this afternoon by the Home Secretary the Government propose a new power to freeze funds when suspicious transactions are under investigation. That will be backed up by new reporting requirements on financial institutions so that they must disclose not only known transactions destined for terrorism, but transactions where there are grounds for suspicion.
	Clearly, a balance has to be struck between individuals' right to privacy and their security at a time of increased risk, but we believe that there is a case for new powers for the police to monitor accounts that may be used to facilitate terrorism; for Customs to be allowed, where there are suspicions, to seize cash not only at our borders, as it can now, but within the UK as well; for the Inland Revenue and Customs where applicable to share information and co-operate more effectively with the police; and for the Treasury to freeze assets where there is a clear risk to safety and security.
	We do this not least because of the weight of evidence concerning the finances of bin Laden and the al-Qaeda organisation, which is complex but becoming clearer daily. It is not primarily bin Laden's personal wealth that supports the Taliban and active terrorist operations, but the profits from the drugs trade and other businesses, and from individual and company sponsors. That money is channelled through a range of financial centres across the globe, with evidence already pointing to centres in the Gulf, Pakistan and central Asia and to money laundering through an established underground banking system. The cells that form part of the wider al-Qaeda network are often self-financing, possibly using business fronts and crime to sustain themselves. Unravelling that relies on first-rate co-ordination.
	Since 11 September, the security services, police, special branch and Customs and Excise—co-ordinated by the National Criminal Intelligence Service—as well as our armed forces, have worked together to track down terrorist finance, and I believe that the whole House will wish to express its gratitude to them.
	To enhance those efforts, we now propose to establish and fund within NCIS a new multi-agency terrorist finance unit, fully supported by additional special branch investigative resources. To improve financial intelligence further, a new taskforce will bring to the anti-terrorism effort the best of academic, financial and commercial expertise, using in particular the best skills of forensic accountancy in tracking assets. It will also investigate underground banking, which is often used for legitimate purposes such as remitting earnings to families and communities far away, but is also known to provide very easy means for criminals and terrorists to conceal the laundering of money and its movement around the world.
	Bureaux de change are another network by which money can be laundered and transferred. In the past 18 months, Customs and Excise has charged 89 people in connection with laundering £590 million. That is just a start. In the consultation document that we are publishing today, we therefore propose the implementation from 12 November of a new regime of supervision to ensure the compliance of bureaux with money-laundering regulations, and we will consult on a registration charge. To make easier the tracing and tracking of criminal and terrorist assets, we are also consulting on a new requirement for proper disclosure of beneficial ownership of companies.
	Large financial centres all over the world have an important part to play in cutting off the supply of terrorist funding. I am able to tell the House that many of the measures that we are bringing forward are to be replicated throughout UK Crown dependencies and overseas territories. They will be announcing their own plans to introduce appropriate equivalent measures.
	The G7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank governors met in Washington on 6 October and concluded that a special plenary of the international financial action taskforce would meet later this month to agree the imposition, enforcement and monitoring of new international standards to combat terrorist finance. Our Government are also pressing for the UN to establish a permanent monitoring and enforcement unit for those standards; for the International Monetary Fund to provide the expert help that many countries need to set up economic crime units; and for the early ratification of the European Union second money-laundering directive and the international convention on the suppression of the financing of terrorism.
	At international meetings, G7 Ministers also had a chance to review the current state of the world economy. We expressed solidarity with the United States Government and the whole of the USA after the tragic events of 11 September and agreed that the global economic challenge demanded a global response.
	Not only have interest rates been brought down worldwide, but the central banks of America, the euro area, Japan and Britain have made clear their determination to take any necessary further action. Oil prices, which have previously risen in times of trouble, have fallen in the past month. We will continue to work with the oil-producing countries to ensure steadiness of supply and prices. Where markets have failed, as in airline insurance, Governments throughout Europe and America have acted together, with a new short-term insurance guarantee.
	These remain uncertain and testing times. As Governments and Finance Ministers work together, every one of us is conscious of the human consequences of economic uncertainty, especially concerns about employment. Since 11 September, the world has acted together decisively to seek to maintain the conditions for stability and growth. The Government's assessment of the current state of the economy and our forecasts for next year will be published next month in the pre-Budget report for full discussion in the House.
	If fanaticism is the heart of modern terrorism, finance is its lifeblood, and I believe that the whole House will agree on the need to move expeditiously to cut off the supply of terrorist finance. Once again, the House is demonstrating its unity and determination, standing firm, as one, to cut off all means of support to terrorism.

Michael Howard: First, I express my gratitude to the Chancellor for the advance indication that he gave me of the contents of his statement.
	I welcome the statement and the measures that the Chancellor has described. Draining the financial lifeblood of terrorism is as important a contribution to its defeat as any other measure we can take. The Chancellor will therefore have the full support of the Opposition for any appropriate action that he takes to achieve that aim.
	We particularly welcome the recognition that whereas money laundering is about making dirty money clean, much of the financial support for terrorism comes, as the Chancellor made plain, from business activity of one kind or another—some of it apparently legitimate. Does he agree that a recognition of that distinction should be at the heart of our approach, and that simply building on existing laws against money laundering may not prove to be the right course?
	Although we welcome the inquiry that the Chancellor has announced into what he described as underground banking, does he accept that any problems caused by that system will not be limited to this country? What assessment has he made of the extent to which the use of the system in other countries has implications for the financing of terrorism? What action, if any, is being taken in respect of that activity in those countries?
	Will the Chancellor assure us that any new requirements that he intends to introduce will be straightforward and comprehensible to those who have to implement them? Does he agree that there has too often been confusion about what the banks are supposed to do? Does he agree that, if his approach is to be effective, there can be no room for ambiguity about the responsibilities of the banks?
	This morning's edition of The Times says:
	"The Home Office and the Treasury were unclear yesterday as to precisely how their responsibilities for the anti-terrorism measures were divided."
	Has clarity now been introduced into that confusion? Finally, what progress, if any, has been made in the investigation of share movements in the days leading up to 11 September, which caused such widespread concern?
	We shall scrutinise the detail of the Chancellor's measures when they become available, with a view to ensuring that Britain has legislation that does not merely adorn the statute book, but works effectively to make a real difference in our efforts to protect those to whom we are accountable, and others across the world, from the appalling consequences of terrorist acts.

Gordon Brown: I welcome the shadow Chancellor to his new responsibilities. From his experience as Home Secretary, he brings to the post a knowledge of terrorist activities and how to deal with them. I am grateful to him for what he has said this afternoon. I should have preferred to have this debate with him under different circumstances, but I am pleased that he has been able to support the measures that we have announced today.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right that the financing of terrorism is distinct from simple money laundering. Money from legitimate sources can go to an illegal destination to support terrorism. It is precisely for that reason that we have called back into action the international financial action taskforce, which made 40 recommendations on how to deal with the issues of money laundering.
	We are now asking the taskforce to deal with the vexed question of the financing of terrorism. I believe that it will introduce an international standard that all countries will be asked to follow. I also believe that international institutions will be prepared to help countries that do not immediately have the resources or expertise to implement such measures, particularly through the creation of economic crime units. I therefore assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we are taking seriously the distinction between money laundering and the financing of terrorism.
	On the investigation into underground banking, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right to point out that such banking is not exclusive to Britain. Indeed, it is more prevalent in many other countries. Once the taskforce has examined the issue, with the expertise that we hope can be brought to bear from not just the public but the private sector, we will share with other countries the results of that review. We are determined to co-operate with other countries in asset tracking, so that we can identify the sources from which terrorism is financed.
	My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be introducing the legislation. The economic crime unit will be part of NCIS, which is under my right hon. Friend's authority. The measure in the Bill that will be of interest to the banks and financial institutions is the obligation to report to the proper authorities any reasonable suspicion that funding could be used for terrorist activities. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman, a former Home Secretary, rightly said, previous legislation left some grounds for ambiguity. There can be no doubt now that any financial institution which has a reasonable suspicion that money is being used to fund terrorist activity is under a clear obligation to report that to NCIS. Investigative action will then be taken as a result.
	Finally, the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the review of share movements in the period before 11 September. He will have noted that the Financial Services Authority has investigated the matter and issued a statement, but investigations are taking place throughout the world. I have spoken to the head of the Bundesbank in Germany, to the Federal Reserve bank and to the Bank of Japan; all are investigating the matter. Any conclusions that can be made will be brought before the House. The matter is obviously serious and we are determined to investigate it fully.

Tam Dalyell: When my right hon. Friend gets back to his office in the Treasury, will he ask his officials to produce a file—a very long file—which resulted from the Inter-Parliamentary Union's 1999 visit to Peru? The file is on drugs money laundering, in particular the immensely complex issue of anonymous numbered bank accounts. No one in their right mind thinks that there is any simple answer to that problem, but it has gained added importance, especially in view of the pressure—to which my right hon. Friend referred—on the United Nations in respect of a permanent monitoring unit. Such a unit—I cannot imagine who is resisting it—might give us some hope that the problem of anonymous numbered bank accounts will be addressed.

Gordon Brown: Yes, I will ask my officials to show me the papers to which my hon. Friend refers. He is absolutely right: the laundering of drugs money is a major problem on all continents and we need far better enforcement. I believe that the events of 11 September have given new urgency to efforts to deal with the problem.
	My hon. Friend might have seen the performance and innovation unit report, published through the Cabinet Office a few months ago, which identified the scale of the money lost as a result of the drugs business. I assure him that we shall deal with those issues and that we shall continue to press for the UN monitoring unit.

Matthew Taylor: The whole House agrees that those who choose to finance terrorism are as loathsome as, and perhaps even more cowardly than, those who undertake terrorist acts of the kind that we have witnessed in the past month. We strongly welcome the Chancellor's attempt to tackle, to track down and to prosecute such individuals both here and internationally, but I have some questions relating specifically to his proposals.
	Will the Chancellor make it clear that the laws on monitoring and freezing of bank accounts and extending new powers to the police will require reasonable grounds linked specifically to suspicion of terrorism or other illegal activities, and that court approval will be needed, perhaps in accordance with rules similar to those that already cover phone tapping?
	NCIS already has a substantial number of disclosures, but I understand that currently few are investigated owing to lack of resources. Is the Chancellor confident that there will be—and is he able to tell the House about—increased resources for NCIS? Also, as it is not an executive body, will similarly increased resources be given to the Metropolitan police anti-terrorism unit so that it can pursue prosecutions? The PIU in the Cabinet Office has already identified that this country carries out a far smaller number of prosecutions than other countries such as the United States and Italy.
	Can the Chancellor outline the Government's position on any action against non-compliant countries following the recommendations of the financial action taskforce, which said that members—compliant countries—should apply counter-measures to non-compliant countries by 30 September 2001? Were any measures applied and—perhaps more important—do the Government intend to apply any measures to non-compliant countries?
	The Government have already said that they will take action on bribery of foreign Governments. Will similar action be taken against bribery of non-Government individuals and bodies? That is a route through which organisations that may ultimately engage in terrorism may raise funds.
	Having promised action on money exchanges, do the Government intend to examine other routes through which such money is often laundered? The FSA has identified spread betting, financial advisers, online broking and credit unions as examples of those. It will be a difficult task, but if the Government are planning to tackle one or two routes, they must tackle them all if action is to be effective.
	We shall support Government measures and I hope that the Chancellor will be able to reassure the House on the issues that we are considering.

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I talked to him this morning, as I did to the shadow Chancellor, about the detail of the measures that we are proposing.
	In his first set of questions, the hon. Gentleman rightly spoke of getting the balance right between the civil liberties that it is our duty to defend in advance, and the need for security felt by people in the United Kingdom. I believe that the proposal that we are bringing forward gets the balance right. There will be every opportunity to debate the issue of police powers to investigate bank accounts. We intend that this will be done only where there is reasonable suspicion. We intend also that, where possible, this should go through the courts. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we intend to work closely with the financial institutions in implementing this procedure.
	The hon. Gentleman is right about NCIS. Thousands of reports are produced each year, which are passed on for further investigation by the police. It is generally accepted, not only in Britain but in America and elsewhere, that so far we have lacked the asset-tracking skills that would allow us to get to the source of funding for those who are engaged in terrorism. We intend to give NCIS and the economic crime unit that particular expertise and additional funding. We intend also that a taskforce will be set up that will bring in private and academic expertise where that is applicable. We have already had discussions with some private sector organisations. Special branch investigative resources will be increased.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about tax reliefs. I should point out that it is illegal to claim tax relief for corrupt activities. The problem has been that in other jurisdictions subsidiary companies that are not British companies have claimed tax relief for the payment of bribes to officials. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the new legislation that we propose will extend the requirement that no tax relief can be given not only to Government or public officials, but to anybody in the private sector and to anyone else who receives money for corrupt activities. The law will be improved and cleaned up in that way.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about spread betting and a range of other activities that may be the subject of money laundering. What those activities have in common is that usually they involve cash transactions, which are difficult to monitor. The FSA takes responsibility for examining the betting industry. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that as a result of a recent report that it has produced, the FSA intends to take further action. I can assure him also that in all the areas that he raised with me both this morning and now, we shall take whatever action is necessary.

John McFall: I welcome the initiatives that my right hon. Friend has so quickly taken in the past few days. Has he any proposals to strengthen the oversight powers of the FSA so that it can find and publicly name individuals who are involved in money laundering? May I seek reassurance that there will remain the closest contact with the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the British dependent territories to ensure consistency of approach so that they do not act in any way differently from the United Kingdom?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who chairs the Treasury Select Committee. I welcome him to his new post.
	The FSA assumes all its powers in a month's time. In my view, it will have powers to deal with the matters that he has raised. If it needs additional powers to do so, we can consider that.
	My hon. Friend referred to dependent territories and overseas dependencies. It has been a source of concern for many years that there are gaps in the law in those countries that prevent us from dealing with money laundering and, in this case, the financing of terrorism. I am pleased that, particularly over the past few weeks, there has been far greater contact with those countries, which are now willing to introduce laws similar to ours. Many of them have money-laundering laws, but they will now introduce laws that will enable them to do as we are doing and try to cut off the supply of funds for terrorism. I therefore believe that we will be able to take further action in that area.
	As for naming countries, which was the second point made by my hon. Friend, the financial action taskforce will name countries that do not meet the regulations. In reply to the point made by the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor), it will consider what action to take when it meets on 29 October.

Andrew MacKay: Will the Chancellor confirm that the legislation will apply to Northern Ireland? Does he accept that a series of measures, which were meant to deal with the funding and financing of paramilitaries, both republican and so-called loyalist in the Province, have singularly failed? What assurances can he give the House that on this occasion it will be different?

Gordon Brown: In many ways, the legislation that has been applied to Northern Ireland is now being applied to the whole mainland to deal with the finance of terrorism. The right hon. Gentleman raised issues which I know are of concern, particularly in the United States of America, which has said that it is introducing new laws to tackle the finance of terrorism. However, it is for its authorities to administer them. As for the United Kingdom, we continue to do everything in our power to cut off the supply of funds to terrorist organisations, whoever they are.

Alice Mahon: I am sure that the whole House welcomes the measures outlined by my right hon. Friend. Is he aware that at a recent meeting of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly the deputy director of Interpol's agency on organised crime told delegates about the bin Laden connection in the financing of the KLA, before and during the war in Kosovo, and before the war in Bosnia, via the Balkans route and the trafficking of arms, women and drugs. Can we have a full inquiry into the activities of the KLA, now renamed the Kosovo Protection Corps, where it gets its finances from and the organised crime in which it is currently engaged?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who asked about a particular organisation. I can assure her that we shall get the authorities to look at it. On her more general point about bin Laden's funding and the funds that the al-Qaeda organisation amasses from a number of activities, we shall continue to examine in detail how those funds are acquired and try to cut them off at source.

John Redwood: When the Chancellor said that our recent interest rate cut was co-ordinated with other countries, did he mean the Treasury requested the Bank of England to take that action or that the Bank of England decided independently to go beyond its normal remit and timing for those changes? I am not against the change; I would just like to know the process by which it took place.

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the matter of interest rates so that I can put him right. The individual authorities—the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve bank and the European Central Bank—make their own decisions about interest rates. I know that many Opposition Members resisted our decision to make the Bank of England independent, but it is independent and makes its own decisions.
	I was referring to what I thought and feel able comment on; everybody here should be able to do that. Following the decisive action by the relevant authorities, there was a boost to the world economy at a most difficult time. There have now been nine interest rate cuts in the USA, three by the European Central Bank and six by the Bank of England in the last few months. All those institutions have made statements in the past few weeks that they will not hesitate to take further action if necessary. I am therefore grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to put the record straight.

Harry Barnes: The measures announced mean that it will be easier to tackle underground banking, money laundering conducted nationally and, with the G7, that practised in overseas financial institutions. Will the provisions be extended so that problems can be tackled in countries like Nigeria, where the Abacha regime salted away masses of money under the dictatorship? Surely the fact that there is nothing internationally to stop the Tobin tax has been finally established. A tax on currency speculation is of great importance in tackling terrorism because it will get at the problem of global poverty.

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend wants to draw me into a very wide debate. May I answer him on the first point about Nigeria? I believe that under the measures that are being embedded in law and have been over the past few years, to which we are adding today, banks have an obligation to report suspicious transactions and we have the power to freeze the money involved. That makes it possible to say that what happened in the past should not happen in the same way again. We are determined to root out the sort of practice that caused us problems in the past. As for the Nigerian case, it is a matter of judicial review, so my hon. Friend would not expect me to comment further on that.
	With regard to the Tobin tax, two issues are involved. The first is the volatility of the international financial markets, and the second is the need for finance for development. On the volatility of the financial markets, it has not been shown that the Tobin tax would make the difference in a liberalised set of capital markets. Interestingly enough, Professor Tobin himself now takes that view. On the financing of development, however, a powerful case has been made for all of us to do more, not just in terms of emergency aid in Afghanistan and Pakistan. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has made additional money available—and further money will be necessary—to feed people there during these difficult times, but more is needed for the general financing of development, so that education, health and anti-poverty programmes move ahead. We stand four square behind all those who want to see a better international approach to securing finance for development.

Michael Fabricant: Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Treasury, the Chancellor will be aware that many billions of dollars move through the banks of dependent territories. In recent months the Cayman Islands, Gibraltar and Bermuda have been highlighted. Could the Chancellor amplify his earlier answer and say specifically what measures are being taken to encourage the dependent territories to introduce new laws rapidly, and what time scale he envisages for the introduction of such laws to dry up money laundering in those countries? Legislation there is every bit as important as it is here in the United Kingdom.

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman is right. Those are big financial centres: the Cayman Islands is the fifth largest financial centre in the world, Bermuda is a world leader in insurance, ranking alongside New York and London for the insurance trades, and more than 300,000 international business corporations are registered in the British Virgin Islands, so what happens in those offshore centres is important. That is why their accepting anti-money laundering legislation and control systems based on the UK model is important. They have done so, and they are not named in the financial action taskforce list of countries where further action must be taken, because they have introduced anti-money laundering legislation. However, they will have to do more. That is why we have been in discussion with them about their adopting the same regulations and laws as we are adopting, or similar regulations and laws, to deal with the sources of terrorist finance. We remain determined to move ahead on all fronts. That means that we can only be as strong as the weakest link, and action must be taken in the dependent territories.
	I believe that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured by the fact that those countries and dependent territories have issued statements to the effect that they are prepared to go in the same direction as we are going to increase the anti-terrorism powers available to them. We also had a debate with them on extending the exchange of information, and I believe that we are making progress on that as well.

Tom Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the House will warmly welcome his proposals? Can he tell us whether the G7 countries and the other important international concerns with which he has been in consultation have agreed with the measures that he has announced in the document that he said he would publish this afternoon?
	On the subject of Peru, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the new President, Toledo, is prepared to co-operate in a way that his predecessor, Fujimori, despite his experience of the terrorist organisation Shining Path, was unable or unwilling to do?

Gordon Brown: I shall write to my right hon. Friend about that point, as I shall write to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who raised it previously, and I shall look at the papers affecting Peru, to which my attention has been drawn.
	On international co-operation, there is no doubt that there has been an increased willingness to co-operate to tackle the sources of terrorist finance. That co-operation means that Germany has just set up a economic crime unit; the Americans have an asset-tracking centre, which has been set up since 11 September; France has issued, and will issue in more detail in the next few days, its action plan to combat financial terrorism, and the Japanese authorities have said likewise, so there is a degree of international co-operation that had not been in existence in this area before, and there is a determination that we will exchange information internationally so that we can deal with the problems. It is, of course, important that centres where little action has been taken in the past are the subject of further scrutiny. That is why we want the financial action taskforce to set down at the end of the month new rules on the financing of terrorism that all countries must apply.

Angus Robertson: On behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, may I welcome the announcement of measures to cut off the supply of funds to terrorism? Clearly, such action is necessary and timely. May I also thank the Chancellor and the Home Secretary for providing copies of their statements?
	Does the Chancellor recall that the Financial Services Authority said in March that it had found that 23 British banks had happily handled the money of the late Nigerian dictator General Sani Abacha and reported that 15 of them had significant control weaknesses in their anti-laundering rules? Is he confident that the measures announced today will make such cases, which involve state terrorists and murderous dictators, impossible in future?

Gordon Brown: That is our intention. As I mentioned in reply to a previous question about exactly the same matter, the power that we now have to require financial institutions to report to the authorities when there are reasonable suspicions about the possible use of funds for terrorist purposes, as well as the power to freeze money, were not available when the authorities were originally dealing with the Nigerian case. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the 23 banks that were named. He might also note that we have offered official assistance to the Nigerian authorities to help them in the recovery of money. That is currently a matter for judicial review, so I cannot, of course, comment on the outcome. We are not only taking legislative measures to deal with potential problems but offering assistance to the Nigerian authorities in dealing with their current problems.

Ann Clwyd: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, especially as the Select Committee on International Development identified in a report on corruption published in March many of the issues that he has raised. In particular, it dealt with the Abacha issue, money laundering and so on. On money laundering, the Committee concluded on the basis of the evidence given to us that there was gross under-reporting of suspicious transactions among professionals such as lawyers and accountants. Will he reassure us that people who refuse to report such transactions will be caught by the legislation that he is proposing?

Gordon Brown: As my hon. Friend has shown, one of the problems is that there is currently no international obligation for financial institutions to report suspicious transactions. The tightening up that has occurred in Britain has not yet taken place in other countries, but we are determined that it should happen. My hon. Friend may note that the second European Union money laundering directive is now the subject of debate in the European Parliament. The directive would require lawyers, accountants and other financial practitioners to report suspicious transactions. If it were agreed to, it would represent a tightening up of the law throughout Europe. I urge the European Parliament to introduce it as quickly as possible.

John Baron: As part of the Government's anti-terrorism measures, does the Chancellor intend to release additional moneys to allow a substantial increase in police numbers? As we all know, any legislation that is passed by the House is worth while only if it can be enforced on the ground. We know that our police forces are overstretched and that crime is increasing. I believe that the additional burden of anti-terrorism measures, together with progress on increasing security—sadly, this will become a fact of life—means that we need a step change in our policing levels.

Gordon Brown: I did not think that the first call to be made today for more money would come from the Opposition Benches, but indeed it has. We have said that we accept that, where security issues, international development responsibilities and the defence and military requirements of what is happening in Afghanistan cause additional resources to be required, that will be a priority for the Government. The hon. Gentleman may have noted that we said that additional resources would be available for NCIS. We also said that they would be available for special branch and its investigative resources. We are increasing Home Office expenditure and expenditure on the police by around 6 per cent. in real terms this year and next year. Of course, we shall continue to examine legitimate claims.

Jim Cousins: My right hon. Friend knows that the House is with him when he says that the concealed ownership of bank accounts and companies can hide crime. However, he also knows that NCIS already receives 15,000 reports of money laundering a year and attempts to tackle them with a staff of 30. Each member of a police fraud squad deals with, on average, three to four live cases with a value of almost £1 million. Customs and Excise investigation and fraud teams are considering a major programme of job losses. Will my right hon. Friend assure hon. Members that the capacity will exist to implement the new laws that he proposes?

Gordon Brown: I shall outline two of the improvements that are being made at the request of the various services that form NCIS. First, there will be greater co-ordination, and the services will be put in the position of being able to work better and more closely together.
	Secondly, we want better asset-tracking intelligence to enable us to distinguish between a suspicious transaction report, which, for example, claims that an additional amount of money was put in a bank account for something of no particular consequence, and the alternative—tracking the assets of terrorists. We want intelligence to be available that will allow us to distinguish between the important and the unimportant. After that has been done, it will be possible to say that many of the cases that are passed on for investigation give the police a clear lead about what they need to do. Of course, we will consider the resources that are necessary to ensure that the service is done well.

Edward Davey: We all agree about the difficulty of gaining international agreement on sanctions against financial centres that are not prepared to clean up their act. For what measures to sanction those countries will the British member of the financial action taskforce press.

Gordon Brown: When the financial action taskforce made its original recommendations, it named several countries that had to bring their practices into line with the accepted standard for the international community. We gave those countries until 30 September to do that. Action against them, and appropriate future action will be considered at the meeting in October.
	Every financial centre that refuses to operate in a way that fulfils international standards will increasingly be outlawed from the rest of the international community. We will lead the calls for the behaviour of centres that do not follow the rules, proper procedures and agreed international standards to be perceived as unacceptable, and for them to lose business increasingly as a result.

Ian Davidson: I welcome the Chancellor's drawing of links between terrorism, drugs, crime and associated problems. However, there is a major omission from the list: tax evasion. It would be helpful if my right hon. Friend extended his powers to cover that. Does he accept that there should be no undue restrictions on the search for financial information and that trawls, which should be carried out, would uncover many links between the different problems?
	Would my right hon. Friend also consider amending the current balance between penalties and rewards for those engaged in money laundering? The profits are enormous and the penalties, especially for lawyers, accountants and bankers in the City of London and elsewhere who assist terrorists to hide their money, are slight. Does he agree that publicly hanging a couple of lawyers would greatly assist with concentrating the mind?

Gordon Brown: We are against capital punishment.

John Bercow: Even of lawyers?

Gordon Brown: I cannot say that.
	My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the problem of tax evasion. Since 1997, we have increased significantly the legislation that tackles tax evasion. Today, we have announced a change in the law on the ability of the Inland Revenue to pass information to the police. That information could not previously be passed on unless treason or murder was involved. We believe that a range of crimes justify passing information from the Inland Revenue to the police. We will consult on the details of the legislation, but the police will have more sources of information from the Inland Revenue about crimes that are being committed.
	We are therefore not only increasing the laws that tighten up action against tax evasion, but making it increasingly possible to deal with financial terrorism through giving the Inland Revenue the ability to pass information to the police authorities in specific instances.

Lembit �pik: Will the Chancellor ensure that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, as well as Ministers in the south of Ireland and the Stormont Assembly, are consulted as the measures are implemented?

Gordon Brown: As I said earlier, some measures that we are introducing today already apply in Northern Ireland and we are therefore extending them to the rest of the United Kingdom. However, if measures specifically affect Northern Ireland or if there is a general need for discussion on measures that will affect Northern Ireland as they apply to the United Kingdom as a whole, we shall consult.

Roger Casale: My right hon. Friend is right to stress that money laundering and other illicit financial transactions are a worldwide phenomenon, so he is also right to stress the importance of co-operative action at European level in framing an international response. However, will he also consider the examples of best practice in other European countries, in particular the experience of a previous Italian Government and the Banca d'Italia in tackling organised crime in that country by making banking procedures more transparent, so cutting off Mafia access to Mafia funds? That example was studied in depth on a trip in March 2000 by the British-Italian parliamentary group to the Banca d'Italia and the Italian equivalent of the Speaker's Office, and I would be pleased to make the report available to my right hon. Friend.

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We shall examine the successes and the weaknesses of operations across the world in considering what we can best do. I believe that the degree of international co-operation now allows us to share experience about what is working and what is not likely to work. The EU money-laundering directive is on the table and I gather that it is to be discussed by the European Parliament on Wednesday. It is possible to move forward and the directive could be implemented next month. I urge all Members of the European Parliament to join us in getting it through.

Railtrack

Stephen Byers: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement concerning Railtrack, to describe to the House the worsening financial crisis facing Railtrack, which led the Government to petition for railway administration on 7 October, and to outline the further measures that we intend to take to put the interests of the travelling public first.
	The House will be aware of the history of Railtrack, as will Conservative Members. When the railway industry was restructured following the Railways Act 1993, Railtrack was created by the Conservative Government. In 1996, Railtrack was privatised by the Conservative Government. It was the only publicly floated utility subsidised by the Government. That subsidy made up the majorityin fact, some two thirdsof its revenue.
	After the Hatfield train crash nearly 12 months ago, the whole network was urgently reviewed and fundamental safety issues were addressed. That added significantly to costs, with Railtrack claiming that it needed an extra 700 million a year to put the track in a proper condition.
	On 2 April 2001, Railtrack asked for help because of its pressing financial difficulties. We brought forward 1.5 billion of investment from the period beyond 2006 to the five-year period starting on 1 April 2001. The first instalment of that deal was paid on 1 October this year in full337 million.
	However in May, June and July, the company's position worsened dramatically. On 25 July, at a meeting in my office, the chairman said that the position was far worse than he had thought in April. Unless extra financial assistance from the Government was provided, it was clear that on 8 November, when Railtrack was due to give its interim results, it would be unable to make the critical statement that it was a going concern. The effect of that would have been disastrous. Immediately I ordered intensive discussions with Railtrack.
	In August, Railtrack's advisers came back to the Department and said that there were simply three options: restructuring, renationalisation or, as they described it, receivership. Thus it was Railtrack's advisers who first raised the possibility of insolvency if no additional Government funding was available.
	I immediately asked my officials to investigate the restructuring option, which involved the provision of yet more funding to Railtrack. Railtrack asked for Government funding to cover all its costs plus a profit and a four-year suspension of the regulatory system. Those were Railtrack's proposals.
	Given the company's demands, we began to prepare for the possibility that we might be unable to provide additional funding and that, as a consequence, Railtrack would be insolvent. To protect passengers' interests it was clearly right to explore the need for railway administration on a contingency basis. As a result, preliminary contact was made with Ernst and Young on 23 August.
	There were further negotiations and various modified proposals, but it was becoming obvious that the company could not continue unless we offered to fund whatever losses it might have for a period of several years. I took the view that I simply could not responsibly enter into such a guarantee on behalf of the British taxpayer.
	We carried on discussions until 3 October, but no way out of the dilemma could be found: either we gave the guarantee on money, or the company became insolvent. So, on Friday 5 October, I reviewed all the relevant papers and considered all the options, including Railtrack's proposed rescue package and the additional Government funding that would be required. Railtrack's proposals were cast in such a way that it was hard to be sure about the precise sum that it was seeking, but it was effectively an open-ended funding request to the Government. I decided that I could not give Railtrack a blank cheque.
	That very afternoon, I informed John Robinson, the chairman of Railtrack, of my decision and of my intention to petition the High Court for a railway administration order if the company was insolvent. The order was granted on 7 October. Railtrack was taken into administration because it was, or was likely to become, unable to pay its debts. Our petition to the High Court showed that there would be a deficit of 700 million by 8 December this year, rising to 1.7 billion by the end of March next year.
	In granting the order, Mr. Justice Lightman said:
	This is clearly a case where the making of a railway administration order is not only appropriate, but absolutely essential, and I shall therefore make that order immediately.
	The press has made much of the position of shareholders. At the time of the April agreement, the Government felt that we should make it clear that our role should be to support the railway network but that we should not be seen as acting as guarantor of individual companies or their shareholders. We therefore agreed with Railtrack a statement of principles. The first point in the statement reads as follows:
	The Government stands behind the rail system but not individual rail companies and their shareholders who need to be fully aware of the projected liabilities of the companies in which they invest and the performance risks they face.
	To ensure that that statement had wide circulation in the City, it was released through the stock exchange news service.
	The directors of Railtrack have now said that they want 3.60 a share. On our calculations, that would require the transfer of up to 1.5 billion of new money from the taxpayer direct to Railtrack shareholders. We believe that it would be wrong to make new money available, and we will not do it.
	In the light of the administration of Railtrack, we believe that we should now consider reshaping the structure of the industry in a way that recognises that the needs of the travelling public must come first. We shall propose to the administrator that a private company limited by guarantee be established to take over Railtrack's responsibilities. Any operating surplus it makes would be re-invested in the railway network. Such a company would have the needs of the travelling public and other users as a priority. As it would have no shareholders, we would remove the conflict between the need to increase shareholder value and the interests of rail passengers.
	The company we propose would have responsibility for operations, maintenance and renewals. It would have a small professional board of executive and non-executive directors. Performance targets would be set and linked to levels of service, safety and value for money. The board would work on commercial lines but would focus solely on delivering a safe, well-maintained rail network that is fit for the 21st century.
	The company would be able to promote collaboration and co-operation around the wheel and track interface, the absence of which has been one of Railtrack's weaknesses. A private company limited by guarantee would need far less intense regulation. We therefore intend to streamline the existing structure while still recognising that there will be a continued need for some form of independent economic regulation.
	We shall discuss these proposals with the industry's key players. We are clear that it is important for the new structure to provide strong strategic leadership; a cut in the burden of day-to-day interference; an end to the self-defeating system of penalties and compensation; clearer accountability; and an end to perverse incentives.
	The new company that we shall propose would be able to raise funds in the market. [Hon. Members: Which market?] Wait and see. Private sector funding would operate in partnership with Government to deliver the 10-year plan objectives for rail. Under our proposals, we intend to offer all existing lenders to Railtrack plc the opportunity to transfer to the new company with no loss of principal or interest. Any debt transferred to the new company would be financially sound and would have, at the time of transfer, good long and short-term credit ratings.
	Many talented and motivated people work in Railtrack. They have worked with dedication, especially over the past seven days, and I thank them for that. I know that they and the rest of the industry want an improved railway system. I believe that, with the demise of Railtrack, that is what they will get. The Government are committing some 30 billion to the network over the next 10 years.
	The administration of Railtrack provides us with a golden opportunity to create a railway system that is united and not fragmented; a railway industry with a shared strategic vision; a railway industry that can respond to the needs of our time; and a railway network provider that answers to the millions of passengers and not to private shareholders.
	Our decisive action makes all that possible, and I commend it to the House.

Eric Pickles: I thank the Secretary of State for providing me with advance sight of his statement. I am sure he will be shocked to realise that it arrived only a few moments before the start of the debate. No doubt he will strive to ensure that, in future, statements arrive on time.
	I commend the right hon. Gentleman for his power of prophecy. Does he recall saying on 1 July, on Breakfast with Frost, that the railways
	need a period of stability,
	and arguing that nationalisation would
	mean paralysis of the system?
	I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman: that is exactly what has happened today. He was right in saying that it would take a few years to establish the nationalised system, and that the railway network would simply get worse.
	The Secretary of State has driven a coach and horses through the Government's 10-year transport plan. The net results of his venture will be higher fares, fewer trains, a reduction in passenger numbers, and a decline in freight. The expansion of the network is now yesterday's agenda; we will return to managing decline.
	Interestingly, the right hon. Gentleman said in his statement:
	The company we propose would have responsibility for operations, maintenance and renewals.
	So it's goodbye to expansion: the company will clearly have no room for expansion of the rail network.
	The right hon. Gentleman also said that the Government would guarantee 30 billion. That is just half of what is due from the Government's plan. Where is the 34 billion of private investment to come from? The best we can hope for is a 12-month delay in investment in such vital services as the west coast and east coast main lines, Thameslink 2000 and the train protection system. For 12 months, nothing much will happenand who will trust the Government again? [Hon. Members: Everyone.] Certainly not the City institutions, which will run a mile. If, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, the new company is able to raise money, it will have to do so at a premium, because the Government, having reneged on an agreement, will not be trusted again.
	The Government certainly will not be trusted by ordinary investors. It is all very well for the Secretary of State to talk about what was sent through the stock exchange news service, but what about the signalmen? I do not suppose that many of them consult the stock exchange news service. Why did the right hon. Gentleman not mention this on Breakfast with Frost? Was it because he forgot?
	Let us consider the plight of the ordinary investor. If the right hon. Gentleman had seen today's edition of The Sun, he would have read about a 33-year-old signalman from Middlesbrough who had worked for Railtrack and British Rail since leaving school at 17. He owns 6,870 Railtrack shares[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to be heard.

Eric Pickles: I am grateful for your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Matthew, the signalman, said:
	I'd saved up hard for many years and, two years ago, decided to buy shares in Railtrack. I knew it was a good company, despite some difficulties, and didn't want to risk my savings.
	According to that signalman, what the right hon. Gentleman has done
	is at the expense of the workforce, genuine working-class people like me who've tried to better themselves.
	Ninety-two per cent of Railtrack employees participated in the company's share scheme. Many of them exercised their option to purchase additional shares long after the Government had secretly decided to make their savings worthless. They put their trust in the Government, and the Government let them down.
	The Secretary of State needs to answer some specific questions. On what date did he take the decision to formulate the plan to put Railtrack into administration as the preferred option? Is it true that he had no face-to-face meetings with the chairman of Railtrack for a whole three months during the summer? What advice did he receive from the Rail Regulator or the Strategic Rail Authority? Is it true that the Government blocked a payment of 162 million to Railtrack, which the company should have received on 1 October, under a funding schedule published by the Rail Regulator in October 2000 and agreed by the Deputy Prime Minister in April 2001?
	Is it true that on 3 October, shortly before notifying Railtrack management of the Government's intention to push the company towards administration, the Secretary of State spoke directly to the Rail Regulator and warned him to take no action to assist Railtrack? Is it true that the regulator was threatened with emergency legislation to deprive him of powers if he tried to assist Railtrack?
	Most importantly of all, what guarantee can the Secretary of State provide that the rail network will require any less public funding than was requested by Railtrack?
	Railtrack is bust because the Government decided to make it so, as the letter from Railtrack today shows. That demonstrates the danger of politicians interfering with the rail industry. The Secretary of State sought a political solution when a financial one was needed. He grandstanded when care was needed. What once appeared to be a carefully crafted political coup now appears to be an ill-thought-out mess.
	This action has been the most destructive act to the railways since Dr. Beeching. The Secretary of State clings to office with his despised spin doctor. He should do all of usincluding the rail industrya favour, by quitting today.

Stephen Byers: There we have it.
	I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his position. I am disappointed that it was not the shadow Secretary of State who responded to the statement, but I look forward to crossing swords with her in due course.
	The hon. Gentleman is right that on 1 July I appeared on the Frost programme. At that time, we thought that the 2 April deal would finance Railtrack through this year, into next year and for the five-year control period. It was not until 25 July, when John Robinson, the chairman of Railtrack, came to my office, that we were informed of the grave financial circumstances facing the company. From then on, it was clear that we faced a dilemma: either to fund Railtrack with a blank cheque or to put in place a contingency plan in case railway administration was needed. It is prudent and appropriate that we plan on a contingency basis. If we had not done that, Railtrack would have collapsed into receivership and the network would have been in chaos.
	Since last Monday, the trains have continued to run and no one has lost their job. We are in a period of railway administration and the company that subsequently emerges will put the interests of the travelling public first. It will be focused on operations renewal and maintenance. We will use special-purpose vehicles for enhancement projects. We are moving in that direction already.
	As I said in my statement, I took my decision on 5 October after considering all the relevant documents. The Government have met all our legal obligations regarding payments to Railtrack.

Mark Francois: Not to shareholders.

Stephen Byers: Despite what the hon. Gentleman believeswhich is a sign of the Conservative party's prioritiesthe Government are not here to fund the shareholders of private companies. During privatisation, 700 million was paid in dividends to Railtrack shareholders. It was a company in crisis and came to the Government with a begging bowl month after month. It begged for taxpayers' money while handing out dividends to shareholders.
	A sign of Railtrack's conflicting priorities is the fact that, while it faced a deficit of 700 million by this December, it paid yet another dividend to shareholders of 88 million at the beginning of October. That is the reality. Shareholders and investors have a choice. The Government made it clear on 2 April that we would stand behind the industry, not behind individual companies or shareholders.
	Interestingly, we did not hear a word from the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) about the problems that Railtrack faced as a result of the very nature of privatisation. He did not even attempt to explain the dogma that led to the privatisation of Railtrack, but we must be very clear about the fact that Railtrack was taken into administration because it could not control its costs. Its overrun on the west coast main line amounted to billions of pounds, and it had hundreds of millions of pounds of liabilities that were due to be paid, so we had to act. We acted in the interests of rail passengers and the public, and we make no apology for so doing.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the fact that Railtrack was, to all intents and purposes, bankrupt has been an open secret in the industry for many months? Indeed, if it had not been able to keep coming back to the Government for more and more money without any evidence of what it would do with it, it would have been automatically put into bankruptcy. Is he also aware that the real problem has been that, when Railtrack was criticised for not keeping up its maintenance, for not seeking proper funding and certainly for not being able to carry out the costings of the modernisation programmes to which it was committed, it was handing out 1 million in compensation to failed executives?
	Is my right hon. Friend further aware that, unfortunately, the people who will suffer are the railwaymen who, instead of being offered bonuses, for which they had worked and to which they were entitled, were paid off by Railtrack with more shares, although it must have known what was going to happen because the City of London had made it very clear what it thought of the company?
	Will my right hon. Friend give the House a very simple guarantee that the new company will not, in any circumstances, continue to pour money in without guarantees to the travelling public and to those who need a modern and rebuilt railway system that it will be spent on the railway, that it will be paid to those who maintain and build the railway, that it will not go into contractors' pockets and that it will not be handed over to other companies that have proved, in many instances, that they cannot run their existing operations?

Stephen Byers: My hon. Friend makes a number of very important points. The report that her Select Committeethe Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regionspublished on 29 March showed very clearly Railtrack's failures in terms of renewal and maintenance and how it had simply failed to manage the railway network.
	We want a new company, coming out of administration, that will not face the conflict of having to enhance value for shareholders but will have one overriding prioritythe interests of the travelling public and the freight industry. As it will be a not-for-profit organisation, any operating surplus will be reinvested in the industry, doing away with the conflict that existed under Railtrack. That will make a real difference for the travelling public. Railtrack's demise offers a golden opportunity to recast the railway industry in our country and to create a railway industry that is fit for the 21st century, which simply is not the case at the moment.

Don Foster: Given the Tories' record on the railways, does the Secretary of State not agree that a degree of contrition from the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) would have been appropriate?
	Does the Secretary of State agree that it was vital to end, in a monopoly, the obscene conflict between shareholder profit and passenger safety? Will he confirm that his proposal to turn those parts of Railtrack that relate directly to the running of the railways into a not-for-profit, public-interest company are not only sensible but mirror proposals made by Liberal Democrat Members as early as February this year?
	Will the Secretary of State acknowledge, however, that the way in which he has handled this affair over the past few days has led to confusion about who is in charge of what and who owns what? After a botched privatisation, are we not in danger of his botching what is, in fact, a sensible solution?
	I agree with the Secretary of State that the public have been rightly concerned that shareholders have received money from Railtrack while, at the same time, the company has been going round with a begging bowl asking for more money from taxpayers. Will he confirm that, even today, Railtrack's website acknowledges that its property portfolio assets are expected to yield a return of 1 billion to shareholders over the next five years? Does he agree that that is the equivalent of 1.80 per share, in addition to the value of all the other assets that have been described elsewhere? Will he confirm yet again, as he has already today, that there will be no more taxpayers' money going to shareholders?
	Given that the Secretary of State has at long last accepted the need to start to reintegrate track and train, will he now stop his crazy proposal to do exactly the reverse for the London underground?

Stephen Byers: We are proposing a sensible alternative to Railtrack. When the hon. Gentleman has had time to study the details, he will realise that it our proposals are not the same as hisat least, I hope they are not.

Don Foster: I gave them to the right hon. Gentleman.

Stephen Byers: I am conscious that the hon. Gentleman gave them to me; that is why I think they are not the same, but we can discuss that a little later.
	Railtrack plc is the body in administration. Railtrack Group is not in administration; it is still being run by the board of directors and it still has shareholders. There will be assets and value in Railtrack Group, and that value can be used for the benefit of shareholders. That is an important point to make, because it shows the need to ensure that we keep the rail network operatingthe Government's top priorityand that Railtrack Group, which is not in administration, can find value from its assets. If it can do that, that value can be made available to shareholders. The important point, however, is that new Government money will not be given to compensate shareholders. We feel that to do so would be inappropriate.
	The hon. Gentleman's final point was about the implications for the London underground, whose position is totally different from that of Railtrack. The important thing to remember about our proposal for London Underground is that, although it has been portrayed by our critics as a Railtrack on the underground, the reality is that it will continue to be a publicly run company. London Underground will have contracts with the private sector, so the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman mentioned will not be repeated in our proposals to modernise and invest in the tube.

Paul Flynn: Does the Secretary of State agree that this calamity was prophesied precisely by the report of the Transport Select Committee in 1993? That Committee opposed privatisation, even though it was chaired by a Conservative and had a Conservative majority. Should we not look for Conservative Members to offer a small apology for privatisation?
	The model being proposed now is similar to one that Glas Cymru introduced. We have discovered a genuine third way: a combination of the vigour of the private sector and the security of state enterprises.

Stephen Byers: My hon. Friend is right when he refers to the reservations that many Conservative Members had about privatisation when it was introduced in 1993. At that stage, the proposal was for Railtrack to remain in the public sector, but in 1996 the then Prime Minister, John Major, was desperate for a privatisation and, as there was nothing else left, he went for Railtrack. We are now living with the consequences of that flawed and failed privatisation.
	My hon. Friend referred to Glas Cymru, formerly Welsh Water, which provides a similar model to the one that we adopting in this case. He referred to it as a third way, and it was interesting to hear him say that. It is the first time that I have heard him talk favourably about the third waylong may that continue.
	The important point is that Labour Members have made it clear that modernisation and reform of public services are important. We have said that, when we think the private sector can add value, it has a role to play. Railtrack was not adding value; it was destroying the rail network. The Government were therefore prepared to take action to put the public interest first. We have done that for railways and we shall do it for public services as well.

Brian Mawhinney: When the Secretary of State instructed his officials on 25 August to commence discussions with Ernst and Young preparatory to taking Railtrack into administration, did he also instruct his officials to tell the stock exchange that that is what he was doing?

Stephen Byers: We were very much aware, as is the right hon. Gentleman, of the Government's legal responsibilities and of the legal responsibilities of the directors of a quoted company. We took that into account.

Peter Pike: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on taking this action, which is the best way of saving the railway system in this country. Does he accept that most people in the north-west believe that the failure resulted from the Tories' privatisation of the railway system and the way in which they broke it into many fragments and different companies? Most of the public believe that the system was bankrupt and that it was obscene to pay the latest dividend. Most people in the north-west also believe that we would not have got the second phase of the west coast main line if action had not been taken to save the situation.

Stephen Byers: The west coast main line will be one of the top priorities, and we already discussing with the administrator how we can make sure that the project moves forward far more positively than it has under the stewardship of Railtrack.
	I am pleased to hear that the measures that we have taken for Railtrack are popular in the north-west. I am sure that they are, and I am also confident that they will be popular throughout the whole United Kingdom.

Kenneth Clarke: Did the Secretary of State's reply of a few moments ago mean that it is still the Government's policy that private sector finance will be the major source of future investment in the railways and many other important infrastructure projects? If so, does he not realise that his obvious scorn for the protection of shareholder value and for the notion of a reasonable return on capital will make it impossible to raise genuine private finance for the west coast main line, for the London underground and for many other projects unless they are accompanied by Government guarantees, the minimal transfer of risk or a hugely increased cost of the borrowing required? If he does not accept that, he does not realise how much damage he has done to the interests of the railway network, the travelling public and many other people looking for much-needed investment in our public services and utilities.

Stephen Byers: What is very instructive is how some of the main architects of the crisis that was Railtrack[Hon. Members: Answer the question.] I shall[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State is responding to questions.

Stephen Byers: I shall answer the question, but the public need to note that the architects of Railtrack and its privatisation have failed to utter a single word of apology during this statement.
	On the specific points made by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), Railtrack comprises Railtrack plc and Railtrack Group. I thought that I made it clear that the value of the assets that are held in Railtrack Group can and will be allocated to shareholders if the directors so determine. I give the commitment on behalf of the Government that we will do all that we can to enhance, if it is appropriate, the value of those assets, but no new public money will go into Railtrack because that would be wrong and inappropriate.
	I do not scorn the position of shareholders, but I recognise that in a dynamic market they have to decide where they invest their money. We made it clear on 2 April that as a Government we do not stand behind individual companies or shareholders. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) asked who told the shareholders that. What is interesting is that on 11 April Railtrack's chief executive, Steve Marshall, was clear about it. He said:
	Yes,
	the Government
	would allow us to go bust. It's quite clearly item one on the agreement
	that we have entered into
	with the Government. While the Government stands behind the industry, they don't stand behind any particular company, of course they don't.
	That is the situation.
	Most people recognise that Railtrack was unique in the involvement of the private sector. There will be opportunities for private finance to work with Government funding. With the assurances that we have given over the past seven days, we are confident that the private sector will continue to want to be involved in public-private partnerships.

Bill O'Brien: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the majority of hon. Members and the public welcome his statement and his action to try to save Railtrack? The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) had difficulty justifying any statement that opposed my right hon. Friend because the privatisation of Railtrack has failed. There is no doubt about that, and it is difficult for Conservative Members to do anything but accept that failure. When the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar sat on the Transport Committee he joined all his Committee colleagues in criticising Railtrack.
	I want my right hon. Friend to assure me that when the new company is established it will implement the improvements planned for Railtrack and for stations, including Wakefield in my neighbouring constituency, so that we have the railway system to which we are entitled in the 21st century.

Stephen Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the need to ensure that the money that is being invested in the railway network is used for the purpose for which Parliament votes it.
	As for the view of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar on Railtrack, I do not know whether it was recorded in 1993, but it is interesting to know that as a member of the Committee he signed up to all-party recommendations on the need to change Railtrack's nature. I regret that his elevation to shadow Transport Minister means that he has to deny his good work all those years ago. It just shows that, for the Conservatives, dogma and ambition will always triumph over reason.

Peter Bottomley: It is public knowledge that one of my brothers-in-law runs a railway.
	Does the Secretary of State understand that he is being tested, at least for today, and that the House is concerned as to whether there are flaws in his conduct? Has his office denied the words quoted in the business news section of The Sunday Times yesterday, in which a journalist was told that he would look like anexpletiveidiot if he said that the company was bankrupt? One of the final paragraphs of that article states:
	A source close to Byers said that the minister now regretted not forcing
	his special adviser
	to resign over her leaked memo.
	Has the Secretary of State denied that?
	When did the offices of the Chancellor and the Prime Minister know that the Secretary of State thought that Railtrack's most likely outcome would be administration? Will his way of funding capital investment be cheaper? Finally, how many workers in the rail industry either owned or potentially owned shares?

Stephen Byers: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman's brother-in-law is involved in a good railway company, which I often use.

John Bercow: It is still a good company.

Stephen Byers: I take the hon. Gentleman's word for that.
	On the substance, I know that the conversations that did or did not take place will be of great interest. The important point is that no one briefed on our approach to railway administration before we moved in that direction.
	On action that might be taken against serving civil servants, the position is clear: official disciplinary procedures should be followed, and that is appropriate.
	As for the value of the private sector funding that we can achieve, I believe, as a result of assurances that we have given, that there will be continued interest from the private sector to support public-private partnerships.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am aware that many hon. Members understandably have an interest in this subject and, in many cases, a deep knowledge of it, but after two very long supplementary questions I appeal for questions to be much more concise. Otherwise, many hon. Members will be disappointed.

Gavin Strang: As my right hon. Friend considers the best future structure for the railway industry, may I remind him of the finding in Lord Cullen's report on the Ladbroke Grove accident? He found that the fragmentation of the railway industry made it difficult for it to take united action on safety. Rather than set up another private company to which we give billions of pounds of taxpayers' money, should we not take this opportunity to bring the railways back into public ownership?

Stephen Byers: The recommendations in Lord Cullen's two reports into the tragic accident at Ladbroke Grove just over two years ago should be followed and implemented with all due speed. They are sensible and will improve the safety record of our railways. My right hon. Friend knows that Cullen did not recommend renationalisation. He gave careful consideration to the structure of the rail network and felt that that was not appropriate. We agree with Lord Cullen's recommendations.

Nick Hawkins: As co-chairman of the all-party railways group, may I tell the Secretary of State that a large number of shareholders, many of whom are Railtrack employees, will find his statement astonishingly complacent? Is he prepared to appear before any of the regulatory bodies of the City of London that may wish to commence formal inquiries into whether he has properly informed City regulatory bodies about his steps in this matter? When he talks about his planned company having future opportunities to raise credit, does he not recognise that, as a result not only of this fiasco but of his failure to sack Jo Moore, his political credit rating is now zero?

Stephen Byers: The important thing is that my actions were taken fully in line with all the legal advice and opinions that I received. I am confident that we have addressed all the issues with regard to the regulation of the City and to obligations that I might have had to declare information relevant to shareholders. I shall certainly appear before any relevant body to explain exactly what the circumstances were.

Brian H Donohoe: My right hon. Friend took the right decision. Had he not, the Opposition would be baying for his blood because the company would have been going bankrupt.
	My right hon. Friend said that he was going to consider due compensation with regard to the cherry picking that is taking place among shareholders. Will he give a commitment to me and the House that the channel tunnel, which was funded almost exclusively by public money, will not be part of that process?

Stephen Byers: My hon. Friend is right to say that the channel tunnel has been a great success. There is an issue about the liabilities and financial interests that Railtrack might have in the channel tunnel, and that was raised with me by Railtrack directors on Friday. I want my response to be as positive as possible, but it must reflect my responsibilities as Secretary of State. If we can ensure that the channel tunnel rail link section 1 continues on time, on schedule and on budget, we will do so. There will need to be detailed negotiations about any value that the project might have, and there are differing views about that value.
	I am prepared to discuss the matter with Railtrack without compromising the position that we have consistently adopted since last Sunday, which is that we will assist with Railtrack Group's assets but we will not provide any new Government funding to compensate shareholders.

Anne McIntosh: May I commend to the Secretary of State the leading article in yesterday's Sunday Business, which points out that far from being a catastrophe, railway privatisation has been, in parts, a stunning success, with 35 per cent. more passengers carried and 45 per cent. more freight transported?
	I declare an interest to the House in that I am a minor shareholder, on a much more modest scale than some RMT-sponsored Members, and like the Secretary of State, a regular user of GNER.
	Following the Secretary of State's statement and press release of 18 July, in which he stated that Railtrack and the Strategic Rail Authority would be joint providers overseeing the infrastructure improvements to the east coast main line, what reassurance can he give the House that the line will be improved before the postponed renewal of the franchise in 2005?

Stephen Byers: The hon. Lady will be pleased when she sees the exact details of our proposals, and I believe that GNER will be pleased. I have discussed with the company the way in which we can restructure the railway industry to provide a better service to the travelling public, which is what GNER is trying to do. The hon. Lady will be aware of the frustration felt by that franchise holder about the way in which Railtrack was dealing with the upgrade of the east coast main line. We are now in a far stronger position to implement those improvements in time and in a way that will benefit the holder of the east coast franchise.

Martin Salter: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations and those of my constituents on his welcome, if long overdue, decision to put the interests of the travelling public ahead of those of Railtrack's shareholders and directors, one of whom used to be the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), and a member of the Opposition Front Bench?
	Is the Secretary of State aware that his proposal to run a not-for-profit company is very similar to the suggestion made by many Labour Members for running National Air Traffic Services?
	My right hon. Friend will have heard the bleating from Opposition Members about the need for an inquiry into Railtrack. If he concedes the need for such an inquiry, will its terms of reference include investigating why a public asset was sold off, just before a general election, at a bargain basement price, and why the share value rose in a matter of months from 3.90 to 17?

Stephen Byers: My hon. Friend states very clearly the facts about the value of Railtrack shares. It is interesting that their value did not do much good at the 1997 general election.
	My hon. Friend mentioned air traffic control. Railtrack's situation is quite different from that of air traffic control, and when he has time to look at the models that we are proposing for each he will see that we are trying to find the right model for each set of circumstances.

Andrew MacKay: Does not the Secretary of State understand that outside the House there is deep cynicism about the timing of this decision? Is he surprised about that, bearing in mind the disgraceful leaked e-mail from his special adviser? Is he aware that he has brought public and political life into disrepute by his lack of action in failing to sack Jo Moore?

Stephen Byers: As I said, the person concerned has been dealt with through the official disciplinary procedures.
	The timing of this decision was dictated by the need to take decisions as soon as all the relevant information was available. As some Opposition Members know, stock market-sensitive information is often communicated on a Friday after the stock market has closed, especially in a case such as this, when administration may follow as a result. That is what we did in this situation, to ensure that any move to railway administration might be made in an orderly way.
	I repeat the point that I made in my statement: the thousands of railway workers who turned up for work on Monday after the railway administration was announced have done a great service to the network. They have worked normally; what has happened has not distracted them. Most of them believe that an opportunity now exists to build a railway network of which they can be proud as workers and of which we can be proud as a country, as is simply not the case at the moment.

Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if there is a criticism of him it is that he did not make his decision sooner? Public disquiet has long existed at the fact that vast sums of public money were being pumped into a system to allow the bosses of the industry to pay themselves huge salaries and bonuses, to subsidise shares without following market principles and, of course, to create a shambles of a railway system. Would my right hon. Friend accept that, now he has done this worthwhile deed, the travelling public is waiting for him to tackle the problem of the operating companies and the shambles that some of them are in? If he has that on his agenda, could he please start with Virgin?

Stephen Byers: My right hon. Friend makes some interesting points, as always. When the scale of the crisis was revealed on 25 July, we moved quickly to consider all the options with Railtrack and to make contingency plans for railway administration, if that proved to be necessary, as it did. Finally, on 5 October, we took the decision when all the relevant factors had been considered and all the relevant issues taken into account.
	My right hon. Friend raises an important point about the role of the operating companies. We should revisit the way in which franchises are awarded to ensure that the travelling public benefit. I said in my statement that we should use this decision on Railtrack as an opportunity to restructure the whole railway industry. I intend to do that, and I would like to think that we could do that in partnership with all the key players in the industry, because that was what was lacking as a result of the privatisation imposed by the Conservatives.

Pete Wishart: I think that everyone in the House would agree that the demise of Railtrack was as predictable as it was overdue. Does the Secretary of State agree that its demise presents distinct opportunities for Scotland, in particular to pursue a new type of not-for-profit investment policy for which we in the Scottish National party have arguedsuccessfully, it seems, given the Government's conversion to that policyover the past few years?
	In Scotland we have a single Railtrack zone. ScotRail provides some 95 per cent. of all train services. Is it not now time for Scotland to break with the failures of the national Railtrack past and to improve public accountability by making the Scottish Executive and Parliament directly responsible for rail services in Scotland?

Stephen Byers: I am delighted that yet another Opposition party is claiming authorship of our proposals, but the hon. Gentleman's proposition does not have immediate appeal.

John Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that privatisation was a complex method of achieving the relatively simple goal of shifting massive amounts of money from taxpayers into the pockets of shareholders? I congratulate him on saying enough is enough to the cowboys who have been running Railtrack for the past few years, but does he agree that one of the most important things that the successor to Railtrack could do would be to begin to employ a direct labour force? That would at least start to remove some of the fragmentation, confusion and lack of accountability that have turned Britain's railways into a lethal network.

Stephen Byers: The issue of employment will be a matter for the company once it is established. Joint work between the company and the Government could be conducted in the field of training. Training in the railway industry has been neglected for many years, especially during the past few years of privatisation. There is a skills shortage in the railway industry, and a productive conversation can be held about the need to ensure that we have a properly skilled work force on the railway network.

John Redwood: As the Secretary of State has now accepted that cash, property and some other assets belong to group shareholders and not the receivership company, can he not see that he will have to persuade the Chancellor to put a lot more cash into the Railtrack company in administration, in order to rebuild its balance sheet now that the group and individual shareholders are shorn of those assets, and to make the company more viable for borrowing and private finance? Given the huge damage that he has done to the private finance initiative and the public accounts, will it not be impossible for his going concern certificate to be renewed by the Chancellor?

Stephen Byers: The right hon. Gentleman has called for my resignation onI thinkthree occasions. Two of the calls were made while we were trying to save jobs at Longbridge in Birmingham. He was prepared to see the company sold off to a venture capitalist resulting in the loss of 6,500 jobs. That was his approach; we ignored him and we saved 6,500 jobs as a result. This action is saving the railway network for the travelling public. I have no intention of resigning for doing that.

Jonathan R Shaw: My right hon. Friend referred to the channel tunnel rail link. As the first stage of that massive infrastructure project nears completion, does he agree that it is vital to the regeneration of north Kent and its people, who have endured disruption, some blight and upheavalit has been a sacrifice for the greater good of the United Kingdomthat the second stage is built? Will he give a guarantee that it will be built along the same route, with environmental safeguards, to ensure the economic prosperity that we so need throughout Kent and London?

Stephen Byers: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case on behalf of his constituents and the people of north Kent. I reassure him that major projects that were under way, whether on section 1 of the channel tunnel rail link or on the west coast main line, will continue. We are talking to the administrators about the steps that can be taken to drive forward the projects more positively and without the cost overruns that we saw under Railtrack. This is the opportunity to ensure, through special purpose vehicles, that we deliver on time and on budget. I give my hon. Friend an assurance that those projects will not be affected by this decision and will be able to continue.

Chris Grayling: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that since privatisation passenger numbers have been rising by approximately 17 per cent. a year, to the point at which the network is suffering considerable capacity problems. Now that we are one year into his 10-year plan for the railways, will he confirm that he has secure funding to complete that plan? Will he also give some examples of enhancements to the railway network that we can expect to be open for business during this Parliament?

Stephen Byers: The hon. Gentleman should probably be aware that passenger numbers are up not because of privatisation but because of the strength of the economy and the fact that more people are in work. [Interruption.] That is why passenger numbers are on the increase. People will see improvements in the railway network as a result of the decision that we have taken. We expect that, during this Parliament, for example, section 1 of the channel tunnel rail link will be completed. That will bring real benefits to the travelling public.

Eric Martlew: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the action that he has taken, about which my constituents in Carlisle are delighted. He may be aware that in April I promoted a private Member's Bill that anticipated today's situation. I ask him for an assurance regarding the west coast main line. Next year, we shall have tilting trains, which are capable of 140 mph. Will the west coast main line be upgraded to meet that standard?

Stephen Byers: I am pleased that the people of Carlisle are celebrating our decision. For too long, they have suffered inadequacies on the west coast main line. The upgrade is important. I know that there has been concern that the work has been falling behind schedule and that all the enhancements that we want will not be delivered. As I said, we are talking actively to the administrator about the major infrastructure projects. We want to ensure that we can improve on the performance under Railtrack.
	If there is one example of Railtrack's failure as a company, it is the way in which it allowed costs to escalate on the west coast main line. The work was originally costed at just over 2 billion; the latest estimate is some 7 billion. That has been the real problem. It is a problem not of the Government's making, but of Railtrack's failures to control its own costs.

Lawrie Quinn: As the other co-chairman of the all-party railways group, I want to say how much I liked the part in my right hon. Friend's statement about recognising the loyalty, talent and commitment of the Railtrack staff who have gone on working for a 21st century railway. Will he give a commitment about the future of freight on rail and say whether the proposals that Railtrack had developed will be followed through by the proposed new company?

Stephen Byers: Freight has often been the forgotten part of the railway network. I know from the discussions that my Department and ministerial team have had with representatives of freight companies that there has been real concern about the way in which the railway network has developed. I assure my hon. Friend that we want to ensure as part of the 10-year planin which we have a clear objective on the growth of freightthat we deliver on that commitment.

Eleanor Laing: Has the Secretary of State forgotten that his Government have been in power for the past four years? Surely he must recognise that what has happened to Railtrack is a direct result of the success of the policies of his right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who set out deliberately to undermine Railtrack and the theory of privatisation by interfering, centralising and destroying a potentially successful company, undermining all future private sector involvement in public matters.

Stephen Byers: According to the Conservatives, Railtrack is not to blame. That is very interesting. I ask the hon. Lady to look at Railtrack's record, which says it all. She cannot blame an individual Member for Railtrack's position. When she reflects on her comments, she will realise that that is the reality. Railtrack is responsible for the fact that, by December this year, it would have had a deficit of 700 million and that, by March next year, it would have had a deficit of 1.7 billion. That is due to Railtrack's mismanagement, not this Government's policies.

Robert Smith: Will the Secretary of State make it clear who in years to come will be responsible for delivery or failure to deliver? He has not yet answered the question about section 2 of the channel tunnel rail link. It is important to the economic regeneration of the area involved, and to ensure that the north and specifically Scotland have direct links to the channel tunnel.

Stephen Byers: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that section 2 of the channel tunnel rail link has already commenced. The work started on time and I understand that it is going well. Section 2 will be completed. The hon. Gentleman need not be too concerned about that. The company, limited by guarantee, will have funding from the Government by way of grant, it will have access to income from track access charges and it will be able to raise money on the private markets. It will therefore be adequately funded to deliver its part of the 10-year transport plan.

Clive Betts: My hon. Friend was absolutely right to refuse to write Railtrack another blank cheque, but will he explain in greater detail the funding arrangements he has in mind for the new company? In particular, will any of its future borrowing, debt, or lossesif it makes anybe underwritten or guaranteed in any way by the Government? How will those funding arrangements sit alongside the public sector borrowing requirement?

Stephen Byers: The proposed company to take over Railtrack's liabilities that we will put to the administrator will be a private company; therefore its borrowing and finance will not score against public borrowing, but will be in the private sector.

Andrew Lansley: The Secretary of State will recall that just over a year ago the Government announced an investment plan for the railways of 49 billion over 10 years, 34 billion of which was to be funded by the private sector. Will he explain now how such investment is to be funded in future? Does he stand by those figures? If the Government expect the source to be private sector funding not guaranteed by the public sector, will he explain to the travelling public for whom he has such regard what that will mean in terms of access charges and passenger fares in future?

Stephen Byers: In terms of financing, the 10-year plan that we announced last year will not be affected by our decision on Railtrack or in other ways. It is important to remember that the City regards Railtrack as a unique body and that it recognises the reasons why the Government had to take the action we took. As the details and exactly what it is that we want to take over from Railtrack are explained to the City, it is becoming interested in the opportunities that will result from our proposals. We are confident that the targets and objectives outlined in the 10-year plan can be met as a result of the demise of Railtrack.

Gillian Merron: In welcoming my right hon. Friend's public-spirited actionan action welcomed not only by Labour Members but by people throughout the countrymay I emphasise the important role that Railtrack has played in the search for a solution to the problem of increased rail traffic as it is experienced in Lincoln, where a track cuts the city in two? Will he confirm that the new organisation will have the scope to work in co-operation with regional, local and national partners so that we can get the regeneration and the rail services that Lincoln and the east midlands deserve?

Stephen Byers: I know that my hon. Friend has already met my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport and stressed the importance of that development to Lincoln. There is no reason why the changes that are now to be introduced will affect her ideas on how to improve the quality of life for the people of Lincoln. I am sure that the new organisation, when it comes into being, will note the representations that she has made in the House and to my ministerial colleague.

Tony Baldry: Does not the Secretary of State agree that the integrity of the London stock exchange is important to the commonwealth of the United Kingdom as a whole? Does he recognise that by creating a false market in Railtrack shares for a number of weeks, he has undermined the integrity of the London stock exchange and damaged investor confidence in London as a whole?

Stephen Byers: Let me answer that important point about creating a false market in Railtrack shares. As I outlined in my statement, I faced a choice on 5 October: either to guarantee further funding to Railtrackan option that I could have chosenor to apply to put the company into railway administration. No decision had been taken until that date. As one who follows such matters, the hon. Gentleman knows where the responsibility to inform shareholders lies if a company is in particular difficulties: he knows that it is not for the Secretary of State to do that. As soon as I took a decision, my responsibility was to make sure that the chairman of the company was informed immediately, and that is exactly what happened on 5 October.

Kelvin Hopkins: First, I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on his timely action. Had that action been taken during the first week of May 1997, we would have saved a vast amount of grief and public money.
	Will my right hon. Friend institute an investigation into the problem of gauge corner cracking? I understand from newspaper reports that the problemit can cause broken rails and lead to accidentsis now worse than it was before Hatfield, and that, as a result of Railtrack's incompetence, it is now occurring in rails that are less than a year old.

Stephen Byers: My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of gauge corner cracking, which was responsible for the accident at Hatfield a year ago this Wednesday. When we consider recommendationsespecially those of Cullenon network safety and we implement those recommendations, we can address precisely that sort of issue. Most importantly, the new company that we want to take over after administration will have a clear objective: it will deal with operations, renewals and maintenance. Above all, it will not face the terrible conflict that arises from the need to increase shareholder value. Its single, overriding priority will be to provide a safe, efficient and effective railway network. The issues my hon. Friend raises can be met by the new company that we intend to create.

John Pugh: Has the Minister noted that many Labour Members have today complained about the fragmentation of the railways? Will he explain to them, and to us, how the proposals for London Underground can subtly avoid that ill?

Stephen Byers: The important point about London Underground is that our proposals for its modernisation and reform will result in a publicly owned London Underground in control of only three contracts with the private sector. Therefore the fragmentation about which the hon. Gentleman is so concerned will not occur under our plans for London Underground. We are not repeating the mistakes made in the privatisation of the railway network.

John Robertson: I, too, thank my right hon. Friend for his announcement. I was especially pleased to hear how he intends to treat shareholders. Everybody knows that entering the shareholding stakes is a gamble: the people who win are happy when it happens, but if they lose, they lose, and that is part of the game. I also thank him for his announcement regarding the west coast main line.
	Will my right hon. Friend re-emphasise that safety and service to the customer are paramount, and that any new company will take that on board? In relation to the rail industry as a whole, will he ensure that no company uses the creation of any new company as an excuse to shed workers and so get more profit for its shareholders?

Stephen Byers: My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of safety: there must be no compromise on railway network safety. He voices concern about the position of railway workers. The company that takes over responsibilities from Railtrack will make decisions on that matter, but it is important to note that the new company will be able to invest its money in the work force, whereas Railtrack has compromised on that. Real improvements are possible.
	My hon. Friend will welcome the fact that we have, through the administrator, made sure that all existing pension benefits for former railway workers will be met in full. There is no question that administration will affect the pension benefits of former railway workers.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must now move on. I suspect that there will be other opportunities to debate this matter.

Business of the House

Robin Cook: Mr. Deputy Speaker, with permission I should like to make a short statement about the business for the remainder of this week.
	I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise the importance of a further debate on the current action to tackle international terrorism.
	The business for the rest of the week will be:
	Tuesday 16 OctoberDebate on the coalition against international terrorism on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Wednesday 17 OctoberThird Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.
	Thursday 18 OctoberThird Reading of the European Communities (Finance) Bill.
	Motion to approve the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 2001.
	Friday 19 OctoberDebate on clean fuels on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Eric Forth: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the debate tomorrow in Government time. I hope that he can confirm that the House will have frequent opportunities to debate the very important matter that we will cover tomorrow, and that a combination of statements and debates will be made available whenever circumstances demand. The one the right hon. Gentleman has announced for tomorrow is very timely.
	The Leader of the House will have noticed that the issues that we are dealing with this week were tabled as long ago as July, because that is the way the House works. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that we must try to respond as best we can to rapidly changing circumstances. In the light of that, will he consider, even at this stage, changing the business that he has announced for Friday? Cleaner fuels may be an important issue, but are not necessarily a timely one.
	I ask the Leader of the House to consider a debate on the relationship of Ministers' special advisers and civil servants and how the integrity of the civil service can be guaranteed. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman shares my view that our civil service is the envy of the world in terms of its professionalism and integrity. It has now been compromised by the actions of special advisers, and a debate on Friday would indeed be a timely opportunity for the Government to reinforce their commitment to the integrity of the civil service. They might be able to tell us how that will be achieved in future more than it has been in the recent past.

Robin Cook: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. When I told the House in June that one of the delights of my new role would be that I would see more of the right hon. Gentleman, I had no idea how prescient I was. I think that it would be fair to say that his appointment came as much of a surprise to me as it did to many of his right hon. and hon. Friends.
	I am happy to begin on a note of common ground with the right hon. Gentleman and say that we will have repeated debates on the issue of terrorism. The issue will be very much before the nation and before the House. Whenever appropriate, we will return to it in debates.
	I would expect many right hon. and hon. Members to welcome the debate on Friday[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. Whoever has the device that is causing the interruption must silence it immediately.

Robin Cook: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (David Hamilton) has underlined the importance of debating new forms of technology on Friday.
	It is important that we should ensure that we take every possible step to provide a cleaner environment for our constituents and make our contribution to meeting cuts in greenhouse gases.
	The Government stand ready robustly to defend the integrity of the civil service, and to justify the codes that we have produced which provide a clear understanding of how civil servants, special advisers and Ministers should behave. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to turn to the issue on an Opposition day, we shall be delighted to debate it robustly with him.

Brian Iddon: Can my right hon. Friend offer the House an explanation of why the long-announced debate on drugs has been deferred? Can he assure the House that the debate will take place in the near future?

Robin Cook: Yes, I can. As my hon. Friend will be aware, and as the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary earlier this afternoon made a full statement on the emergency legislation that he is preparing against terrorism. The Home Office is now responsible for bringing forward possibly three different Bills. These are the emergency measures against terrorism, the possibility of an extradition Bill and the possibility of an asylum Bill. Given that intense work load and the great importance of ensuring the security of the United Kingdom, it is understandable that in these circumstances a debate that requires the presence of the Home Office should be deferred. I hope to see the debate reinstated at an appropriate time when the Home Office can appropriately find priority for it.

Paul Tyler: Given what the Leader of the House has just said, I wonder whether he recognises that there is a great danger that the House may suffer a severe bout of legislative indigestion in the coming weeks. May I refer him to a paraphrase of my favourite prayer, which goes as follows: may God grant us the patience to recognise the things that we cannot change for the better by law, the courage to change the things that we can, and the wisdom to know the difference?
	Does the right hon. Gentleman accept from the reaction of Members on both sides of the House to the Home Secretary's statement and to the Chancellor's statement earlier that we have not been very good in the past at dealing in a knee-jerk fashion with emergency legislation? I am sure that he will recall the dangerous dogs legislation, the legislation that was referred to as the dangerous football yobs Bill and previous terrorist legislation.
	Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the needI think that it was represented by Members on both sides of the House earlier when the statements were madethat we should allocate appropriate time for the scrutiny of the proposed business? Does he understand that it may result in other business having to be deferred, perhaps for a long period? Will he set in motion discussions with other parties in the House to ensure that we deal with the proposed legislation effectively and scrutinise it in full?

Robin Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his prayers. I am sure that I will benefit from them during the Session.
	As for the forthcoming Bill, I fully accept his point that it is important that there should be adequate time for its scrutiny. I have said repeatedly that our maxim is that good scrutiny makes for good government. At the same time, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that our constituents beyond the House will be expecting a rapid and expeditious response from the House to ensure that we plug any gaps in our provision against terrorism. I hope that with the agreement of Members on both sides of the House we can provide time for adequate scrutiny and at the same time make decent progress. I rather like the phrase used by the shadow Home Secretary, who said that we should seek to produce good law and fast law.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that supplementary questions must relate to the statement that has been made by the Leader of the House on this week's business.

Ian Gibson: Will my right hon. Friend indicate when he will set up the Science and Technology Committee? Given the contradictory statements on chemical and biological warfare, there seems to be an issue here that demands deep scrutiny.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That has nothing to do with the business statement.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: To inform tomorrow's debate, will the Leader of the House give some idea of the timetable for the three pieces of emergency legislation? When is the House likely to see them? As they are emergency pieces of legislation, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether they will be timetabled? Given that he must have thought about the time that they will take to pass through the House, will he say something about other legislation that will have to be deferred to make time for the emergency legislation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman heard my ruling, which was that questions must relate to this week's business. There will be a further opportunity on Thursday to question the Leader of the House on wider matters.

Simon Thomas: I welcome the debate tomorrow on the Adjournment of the House, but it is noticeable that all the recent debates have been on Adjournments of the House and not on substantive motions. Will the Leader of the House be looking to have a debate on a substantive motion very soon, possibly even on Friday?

Robin Cook: It is the custom of the House to debate issues relating to such a crisis on the Adjournment of the House so that Members may make any contribution that they wish that is relevant to the crisis. That has been a longstanding practice. There have been exceptions to it, however. There was an exception during the Suez crisis when the then Opposition vigorously opposed the line that was being taken by the then Government. I do not think that there is any serious dissent within the House over the measures that are being taken by the Government. There are many ways to sense the will of the House, and those of us who sat through much of the recent three days of debate understand that at least 90 per cent. of Members are behind the action that the Government are taking. A substantive motion will not alter that clear fact.

Julian Lewis: In relation to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the shadow Leader of the House, about the proposed topic for business on Friday, will the Leader of the House reconsider his suggestion? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that if truth be told there are as manyif not moreLabour Members as Conservative Members who are deeply upset, concerned and appalled by the behaviour of a special ministerial adviser in seeking to bury unpopular news under the blanket of a terrible terrorist outrage? Under those circumstances, how can the Leader of the House defend the suggestion that it should be for the Opposition to propose a debate on the matter on an Opposition day rather than for the Government to table a debate on Friday, when it could usefully be discussed?

Robin Cook: The Government have repeatedly made it clearI have done so, my colleagues have done sothat the statement by Jo Moore on that day was a serious error of judgment. She herself has expressed regret; I am quite sure that she will not make such a mistake again. The issue raised by the hon. Gentleman is whether someone should be dismissed for making one mistake in the course of his or her career. The judgment of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is that that would be unfair to the career of that special adviser, who has herself admitted that she was wrong. I hope, but it may be a vain hope, that the House is big enough to accept that she has said sorry and will not do it again. She should be given a second chance to get on with her job and we should get on with ours.

Graham Brady: Will tomorrow's debate on terrorism be preceded by a statement by the Prime Minister, as has been the case with previous statements? If not, when will the House be brought up to date by the Prime Minister?

Robin Cook: The House will have a full opportunity to be brought up to date during the course of tomorrow's debate, but the present thinking is that it will not be preceded by a statement by the Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman is right that the Prime Minister has made three successive statements to the House, the most recent of which was at the end of last week. He will, of course, be available to answer questions in the House on Wednesday.

George Osborne: Will the Leader of the House find time this week to have a debate on the decision of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on local councillors' expenses? As we know from his own political adviser, it is bad news which the Government obviously do not want to discuss. Should that not be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny?

Robin Cook: As a former councillor, I believe that it is important that councillors should receive the expenses necessary to provide good-quality, democratic local government.

Orders of the Day
	  
	Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

John Denham: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I have to confess that the events of recent weeks have given a new perspective and, perhaps, a new sense of proportion to issues that have previously concerned the House. The House will obviously spend a considerable period in the days and weeks ahead on major issues but it is none the less, also our responsibility to continue the normal business of legislation on other matters.
	The Bill repeals section 5(2) to (5) of the Football (Disorder) Act 2000, together with a related reference in section 3. The effect will be to continue to enforce without time limit the provision for banning orders on complaint and summary measures relating to detention and referral to the court in the Football Spectators Act 1989. It may be helpful if I remind the House of the reasons why the 2000 Act was introduced last year. Hon. Members who have looked into these matters will know of the association between football disorder and the English domestic game since it became a mass spectator sport at the end of the 19th century. The domestic problem has not gone away, but it has been largely marginalised by an array of legislative and other measures. English football stadiums are now among the safest and most secure in the world.
	In recent years, concern has centred primarily on the behaviour of English football fans travelling to matches overseas. In 13 of the last 23 years, more than one serious incident has occurred. Each damaged our national reputation and together they resulted in many thousands of English arrests and deportations.
	Prior to the adoption of the 2000 Act, a number of legislative measures were put in place. Each successive Act adjusted and expanded the measures available to the police and courts to tackle the evolving character of football hooliganism, and made a significant impact on domestic hooliganism. However, measures designed to combat English football disorder overseas proved less successful. In the build-up to Euro 2000, orders could only be imposed by the courts following conviction for a football-related offence. The law made a clear and, in many respects, artificial distinction between domestic and international banning orders. There was also provision for the courts to impose orders on the basis of convictions overseas if the requisite international agreement and legal measures were in place.
	While a number of such agreements were put in place, the option did not prove fruitful, largely because host countries continually, if understandably, preferred to arrest and deport offenders, rather than pursue costly and time-consuming court proceedings. The reality is that football disorder usually involves rather low-level crime and disorder; its cumulative impact far exceeds its constituent offences. Euro 2000, as everyone knows, provided strong evidence of the reason why the previous measures were flawed. In preparation for it, the Belgian and Dutch authorities prepared a comprehensive and sophisticated security operation, maximised international police co-operation and aimed to minimise the risk posed by England followers. This country co-operated to the utmost extent.
	The effectiveness of those preparations was constrained by the legislation, which limited the number of hooligans who could be prevented from travelling from England to follow the English team overseas to about 100 individuals. In spite of extensive precautions, English fans were involved in serious disturbances in Charleroi and Brussels. The measures put in place were effective to the extent that only one of the 965 England followers arrested during the tournament was subject to a banning order imposed following conviction for a football-related offence. However, subsequent police checks revealed that 40 per cent. of those arrested had convictions for offences of violence or public disorder, although not necessarily connected with football.

Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that one of the biggest causes of disorder in many football grounds is racism. Does he accept that racism is a factor that we need to look at in the legislation? Will he take this opportunity to say that the House gives its full support to the current campaign to kick racism out of football?

John Denham: My hon. Friend is rightwe are currently in a 10 or 13-day period in which the premier league is promoting anti-racist campaigning at league grounds. On Saturday I was at St. Mary's stadium in Southampton, where that was given a high profile. I entirely agree that it is important to continue the successful efforts of recent years to tackle racism, which is particularly important at the current time when, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said earlier, people want to exploit any tensions within our society. I am therefore grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter.
	As I was saying, after the trouble at Euro 2000, it was clear that a substantial number of those arrested had convictions for offences of violence or public disorder, which were not necessarily connected with football. We also found, in line with the established trend, that only one of the 965 arrested was subsequently convicted of an offence following the disturbances. Of course, the disorder caused by England fans at Euro 2000 generated a great deal of criticism. The host countries, other European countries and the international football authorities felt that the United Kingdom had to do more to protect host cities and citizens from English hooligans. UEFA threatened to expel the English team from Euro 2000 if there were any further outbursts of disorder involving English supporters.
	In the light of the disorder and the information collected about the perpetrators, the legislation that we are discussing today was introduced to do a number of things. First, it will demonstrate to Governments, police forces and the public across Europe and beyond that the UK is taking effective steps to prevent English troublemakers from travelling to matches overseas. Secondly, it is designed to prevent English football from being banned from world competition. Thirdly, it will provide the police and courts with extensive powers to remove from the scene greater numbers of supporters with a track record of violence and disorder, not necessarily football related; it will remove the on-going anomaly of supporters misbehaving overseas in the expectation of avoiding any punishment while abroad and any consequences on their return; and it will deter potential troublemakers from misbehaving and, importantly, others from getting involved and transforming minor incidents into major disorder.
	Those considerations led to the Football (Disorder) Act 2000, which introduced four important changes. There was widespread support on both sides of the House for two measures, the first of which abolished the distinction between a ban on attending matches at home and overseas, so that when a court imposed an order, it had the effect of the previous domestic and international banning orders combined. The second measure, which received widespread support on both sides of the House, made passport surrender during specified periods an automatic condition of a banning order. A safeguard was built in to enable the court to waive the condition in exceptional circumstances, and the power of the football banning orders authority, or the police in urgent cases, to grant exceptions was retained.
	There were two more controversial measures in the 2000 Act. Section 14B empowered magistrates to impose banning orders on individuals in circumstances other than on conviction for a football-related offence. The complaint process requires the police to satisfy the court that the person before it has caused or contributed to violence and disorder, and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the making of an order would help to prevent violence or disorder in connection with football matches.
	Sections 21A and 21B provided a different route to seeking an order on complaint during control periodsthat is, the five-day period prior to an overseas match involving the England or Wales national team or an English or Welsh club side. Section 21A empowered the police to detain an individual for up to four hours, or six hours with the authorisation of an inspector, where a police officer had reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person had caused or contributed to any violence or disorder in the UK or elsewhere, and for believing that imposing a banning order on that person would help to prevent violence or disorder at or in connection with any regulated football matches.
	The purpose of the detention is to enable the police to decide whether to issue a section 21B notice, which requires the individual to appear before a magistrates court within 24 hours. In the meantime, the individual is prevented from leaving England and Wales. The magistrates court would then treat the notice as an application for a section 14B banning order on complaint.
	It was suggested by some in this House and the other place that sections 14B, 21A and 21B went too far. The Government did not share that perspective, but it was a genuine position for right hon. and hon. Members to hold. That is why the 2000 Act limited the lifespan of the measures. It stated that a report setting out the impact of the Act should be laid before Parliament before the powers could be renewed by affirmative instrument for a further 12 months.
	That report was laid before Parliament on 20 June and it concluded with an assessment of the impact of the Act during the period concerned. It concluded that there had been no significant disorder since Euro 2000, notwithstanding a number of potentially high-risk matches; fan behaviour had noticeably improved; the number of troublemakers prevented from travelling to matches had increased significantly; Governments across Europe had welcomed the Act; legislative gaps exposed by the disorder during Euro 2000 had been closed; and importantly, the Act was being applied in a targeted and proportionate way.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. In connection with that report and the subsequent report which he has helpfully provided today, can he tell us where detail can be obtained about the sort of cases in which challenges have been made to section 21B, the duration of those cases, and the number of times a successful challenge has been raised? I note that there are some statistics in the last report that the right hon. Gentleman produced, but is any other information available which could help the House to understand how those who challenged the making of those orders fared?

John Denham: I shall be as helpful as I can. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed in the earlier report that some 30 section 21B notices were cited. Those are included in the total number44of orders on complaint. About 30 people were stopped under section 21B, and 19 of those were effectively confirmed by the courts. I am searching my notes for the exact figure, and if necessary I shall write to the hon. Gentleman, but roughly speaking, half of those cases were dismissed by the courts and the others were not pursued. It is worth bearing in mind that the great majority of those were connected with the France-England match in Paris in September 2000, and that the legislation came into force on the first day of the control period. It is reasonable to say that people were using the legislation for the very first time.
	Most of the cases brought before the courts following the issue of section 21B notices were adjourned and subsequently referred to courts in the subject's area of residence. Responsibility for prosecution was also transferred from the police force issuing the section 21B notice to the force in the subject's area of residence. Inevitably, it took many months for some of the cases to be resolved. When we are in a position to analyse the corresponding set of figures in the run-up to the Munich game, we will see the benefit of a more consistent approach to the use of orders. We will also see that the police learned from the initial experience of how the courts treated evidence placed before them.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) and I are the only leftovers from the team that played this game in the last Parliament.
	I want to pursue the question raised from the Conservative Front Bench. The evidence so far does not justify a continuation of the legislation. First, does the Minister accept that the vast bulk of people who have been prevented from travelling have been prevented after a conviction? That is entirely acceptable to some of us, but it is not acceptable that they should be prevented from travelling after a complaint, where there has been no previous conviction. Secondly, the report issued today shows that in many cases the court proceedings were adjourned, so there was no decision and the people concerned were unable to travel, without any finding by the court that a banning order should be implemented. That is entirely against what we were told would happen and is unacceptable.

John Denham: I regret that the hon. Gentleman takes that view, and I believe that he is mistaken on a key point. My understanding is that all the people who were prevented from travelling to Munich and the earlier matches overseas had convictions for violence or public order offences. Not all those convictions were for football-related violence or public order offences, but the House understands that one of the consequences of the success in recent years in tackling football violence within football stadiums has been that football violence has sometimes moved to locations several miles away from where the matches take place.
	Much as it would be nice to believe that in every case that would be recorded by the courts as football-related violence, that is not the reality. The fundamental premise on which the Bill was based was the necessity to be able to take into account violence and public order misconduct, whether or not it was seen as football related. Of course it is true that the majority of banning orders rely on some previous legislationthat was always going to be the casebut we needed to build on what existed in order to close a loophole.
	I shall make a point now that I intended to make later. Clearly, there is a considerable amount of video material on the misconduct that occurred in Germany around the Munich match. There was some trouble, and the legislation gives us the ability, I hope, to identify at least some of the ringleaders and participants in that action and to apply for banning orders under the Bill. If the legislation were not in place, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, we would not be able to do that. We would know who was involved and what they had done, we would know that they had participated in acts of violence in Germany, but we would be utterly powerless to prevent them from travelling to another away game. That is what he is advocating, and I believe that he is wrong.

Tony Clarke: My right hon. Friend concedes that many acts of violence occur far away from football stadiums and are not connected to the game in any way. Given the rise in the number of offences that are categorised as football violence, does he believe that the time is right to recategorise such offences? That would prove that football had indeed cleaned up its act. If the number of football-related offences increases by 8 per cent., but it is conceded that many of those offences were nothing to do with games, occurred many miles from the stadiums, and were not football related, surely our accounting is wrong and football is often being blamed for violence over which it has no control.

John Denham: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but I take precisely the opposite view of the evidence. Some of the violence is football related. In common-sense terms, when two sets of fans supporting two different teams arrange to meet for a fight at a venue some distance from a football stadium, what is happening should be described as football related. However, such occurrences do not always turn up as football-related crime in the convictions that are handed down by the courts, which is a potential loophole in our ability to prevent people from travelling.

David Drew: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is some evidence to show that football hooligans have begun to infiltrate the non-league game? Will he give an assurance that, if such people are arrested when they are attending non-league games, the normal requirements of the law will apply, just as they would in respect of people attending a premier league or football league game?

John Denham: On that point, I hope that my hon. Friend will resist the blandishments of the Liberal Democrats. Somebody who is convicted of violence when attending a non-league game will be covered. The House will remember that two tests are involved. It is not enough merely to have a conviction for violent or public order offencesthere must be grounds for persuading the police, in connection with section 21A of the 2000 Act, and subsequently a court, of a reasonable belief that banning somebody from travelling will help to prevent violence or disorder at a football match. In principle, however, my hon. Friend is absolutely right.
	It is a matter of record that in July, Standing Committees of this House and the other place approved resolutions extending for 12 months the lifetime of the measures in question. There is no provision for further renewal, so the provisions will lapse unless the relevant sections of the 2000 Act are repealed. The impact report laid before Parliament in June suggested that the Act had had an immediate and positive impact on the behaviour of English football supporters overseas and that the new provisions had become important weapons in the arsenal of tools for tackling hooliganism. We asked Parliament to renew the powers because they were considered essential for the high-risk England-Germany match in Munich on 1 September. I believe that the Act withstood the challenge.
	Last week, we placed in the Library a supplementary impact report on the 2000 Act. We made efforts to distribute the report and I understand that Opposition spokespeople have received copies. What does it reveal? The report and its appended summary of risks and preparations outline why the Germany game was high risk and why an extensive multi-agency security operation was necessary. I am told that in the sub-cultural world of football hooliganism, this was regarded as the big one. There is certainly long-standing and intense rivalry between the followers of the two national teams. Violence has been sporadic, but the tension has long been recognised.
	The key elements of the security preparations revolved around minimising the number of troublemakers travelling to Munich and their influence on other fans. Close Anglo-German police co-operation was essential and maximising the impact of the powers that we are discussing was even more so. Our objectives were achieved to a very significant degree. I should place on record my congratulations to the German police on the effectiveness of their tactics and their willingness to co-operate with their English counterparts, which was exemplary. There were sporadic clashes between rival fans, but the numbers involved meant that the Munich police could contain the disorder. The German police estimate that about 300 English and 450 German hooligans were involved. Of course, those are 300 too many from the English side, but at no point did it seem likely that numbers would be swelled by a significant proportion of the 11,000 English fans who were present in the city.
	The mass disorder that might have taken place did not materialise. As a result, we are not today debating a fresh entry in the long catalogue of major disorder involving English football fans and we do not have another blemish on our national reputation. Indeed, the German media and police have placed most of the blame on German hooligans provoking their English counterparts. I am not saying that the problem of English hooliganism has gone away. There is still work to be done, but we have come a long way since Euro 2000.
	Overall, 201 people were detained or arrested, most of whom were German nationals. Some 38 English arrests were made for various public order offences. Those arrested have all been released, although four people have been charged and asked to pay a deposit in lieu of a fine, pending court proceedings. Of course, policing styles vary in Europe and it would be unwise to draw conclusions simply on the basis of arrest statistics. However, a simple comparison with Euro 2000, when there were 965 English arrests, mass deportations and much criticism of the behaviour of England supporters, suggests that we have made progress. In connection with a very high-risk match, 38 English arrests were made and there was good behaviour among the vast majority of English supportersbehaviour that has been praised in the German press.
	I have no doubt that the disorder that occurred would have been much worse if the measures introduced by the 2000 Act had not been in place. Some 537 known troublemakers were prevented by their banning order conditions from travelling to Munich, compared with the 100 who were prevented from travelling to Euro 2000. Of those people, 492 were banned following conviction for a football-related offence, and the remaining 45 were banned in accordance with the section 14B civil process. All 45 people had convictions for violence or disorder, although they were not necessarily football related. In addition, a further 58 people were prevented from travelling by the courts, in accordance with the section 21B process. Again, all 58 fans have convictions for violence or public order offences.

Simon Hughes: The Minister will know from reading the record of our debates on the original Bill about one of the key differences between our parties. The Government argued for a banning order to be permitted without any previous conviction, but we said that such an order was acceptable in relation to football-related convictions and any other appropriate convictions for violence and other offences committed in the preceding 10 years. Does not the evidence that he has provided show that such a measure would have been entirely sufficient? His figures demonstrate that almost all the people who were given banning orders had previous convictions for violence. There is all the difference in the world between banning somebody with a criminal record and banning somebody with no criminal record at all. Does he agree that those are grounds for rethinking the basis of his request to Parliament to extend the Act in exactly the same form as that in which it was introduced?

John Denham: Let me explain why I do not agree. It is not entirely surprising that all the banning orders have been given to people with convictions for violence and disorder, bearing it in mind that the police will have wanted to maximise their chances of convincing the courts in this country of their case. For the vast majority of cases, the orders related to convictions given in this country. However, I believe that the possibility of imposing a banning order on somebody who can be shown to have participated in violence, even if he or she has not been convicted, is still necessary. That ability is obviously necessary in relation to the circumstances in Munich. Without it, about 300 troublemakers, by and large, would not have been convicted in German courts. Like many other countries, when Germany had previously been faced with such difficult circumstances it tended to deport people and get them out of the country rather than to hold them for arrest and conviction. It is not certain, but likely, that video or other evidence will enable us to identify individuals who played a leading role in the violence. If we took the hon. Gentleman's view, we would accept that such individuals could travel to future matches despite the fact that they had been seen participating in violence, simply because there was no conviction. That would be a loophole.
	The test for the legislation is whether the evidence in the supplementary report shows that it has been used proportionately and in a targeted way. I believe that it does. The hon. Gentleman draws the wrong conclusion from the evidence that has been presented to him this afternoon.

Jim Sheridan: I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment on racism. However, there is another ism that has not afflicted the English game so far: sectarianism. We appear to be moving towards a British league, and sectarianism in the English game is the last thing we need. Will my right hon. Friend give a commitment to work with all interested agencies, including the clubs that are invited to join the British league, and ensure that they sort out their houses before joining and do not export sectarian baggage?

John Denham: In so far as the legislation applies to Scotland, it is the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. Many peoplenot least my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sportwould want to ensure that the Government considered all the implications of any move towards a British league. If the pattern of football violence changed, I am sure that the Government would wish to keep legislation as well as policing practice under review.
	Steps to prevent troublemakers from leaving the country have an impact on policing England fans overseas. There is less chance of fans being treated on the basis of their reputation rather than their behaviour. The Munich police, aided by a United Kingdom police team in the city, adopted a targeted, low friction, early intervention approach, which was praised by independent supporters' groups. The overwhelming majority of fans were able to enjoy their trip to Germany and avoid the troublemakers. I have refrained from mentioning the result until now, but it undoubtedly surpassed their wildest expectations. Before the 2000 Act, those inclined to cause trouble overseas could do that in the knowledge that there would be little or no impediment to repeating their misbehaviour at future matches abroad. The banning order option is therefore important.
	The supplementary impact report, which was laid before both Houses, has been mentioned. It provides a more detailed account of what transpired in Germany.

Dominic Grieve: Before the Minister concludes, will he explain why it is necessary to introduce the Bill now rather than waiting until the end of the expiry period for renewal under statutory instrument? That might have provided a better opportunity of gauging its success and whether it was unfair to some individuals.

John Denham: The House has sufficient accumulated knowledge from the implementation of the 2000 Act in its first year and the major game against Germany, at which many people expected violence, to make an assessment. Perhaps we can discuss those matters in more detail in Committee, but we believed that there was enough knowledge and experience to introduce the Bill.
	As I said earlier, we have shown that the legislation has been used proportionately and in a targeted way, not arbitrarily. Neither personal appearance nor an isolated expulsion, unsubstantiated by accompanying evidence of misbehaviour, would be grounds for detention under section 21A.
	When we considered the extension in Committee, there were outstanding challenges under the European convention on human rights and European Community treaty law. Our view that the measures are compliant was recently endorsed in a High Court judgment, rejecting challenges to the 2000 Act. Lord Justice Laws makes it clear in his judgment that the purpose of the banning order is not punitive, but
	to protect the public here and abroad from the evil of football violence and the threat of it.
	On the proportionality of the measures, the judgment stated:
	The State was entitled to conclude that very firm measures were justified to confront the various sickening ills of football violence . . . the progressive nature of the succeeding measures from 1986 onwards, and the safeguards clearly established in the 1989 Act demonstrate
	that the measures
	are amply justified in light of EC law and the general law relating to proportionality.
	There is compelling evidence for maintaining sections 14B, 21A and 21B on the statute book. They withstood a thorough practical and legal examination in the past 14 months; they would be lost without the Bill.

Dominic Grieve: I welcome the opportunity to debate the matter with the Minister and I thank him for drawing our attention to the paper that was placed in the Library. I discovered it only shortly before the beginning of the debate, but it has been helpful concerning the singular lack of evidence about the operation of the relevant sections of the Football (Disorder) Act 2000.
	In opening the debate, the Minister made a comment with which I entirely agreed about the Bill in the context of the international situation. He is right that in comparison with the gravity of some matters that the House must now tackle, the Bill may not appear very serious. However, there is a similarity between it and the other measures that we must consider.
	We are debating another example of the House being asked to depart from the normal standards of criminal justice that have applied in this country over many generations. We are being asked to use administrative methods to deal with a particular criminal problem.
	Another example, which was much criticised by Labour Members, is the exclusion orders that prevented people from travelling from Northern Ireland to other parts of the United Kingdom. They gave rise to serious anxieties about human rights. Although we are discussing football hooligans, not suspected IRA terrorists, the measure falls into the same category of consideration when we decide whether renewal should occur in the form requested by the Minister.
	The Opposition share the Government's aim in the Bill and in the Football (Disorder) Act 2000. It is clearly desirable to check football hooliganism. One of the Minister's most compelling arguments is the example of what happened recently in Germany during the international competition. It is clearly a good sign, and I accept the Minister's comments about the contribution that sections 14 and 21 made to that.
	It is worth pointing out that previous Conservative Governments have attempted to work along the same lines. For example, they introduced the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985, the Public Order Act 1986, and the Football Spectators Act 1989, which imposed restrictions for the first time. A previous Conservative Government also introduced the Football (Offences) Act 1991 and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
	I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge that the Opposition first advocated restriction orders on unconvicted hooligans in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. We accepted that an exception to the normal rule in relation to criminal law could be made in that case. Indeed, I draw great comfort from the fact that, the issue having been specifically challenged in the courts during the summer, the courts have ruled that there has been no breach of the Human Rights Act 1998. That was the view we took and the view that the Government adopted, so it is cheering that it is the view that the courts have confirmed as being proportionate. However, the then Home Secretary did not agree with our suggestion and consulted.
	During the passage of the private Member's Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) again sought to flag the matter up and it was agreed that it was not appropriate for a private Member's Bill. The Government had to give it proper scrutiny.

Simon Hughes: rose

Simon Burns: I would be grateful for clarification. To which Bill is my hon. Friend referring?

Dominic Grieve: I am making specific reference to the measure introduced in 1999 by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey.

Simon Burns: I do not want to cause my hon. Friend any difficulty, but the Bill was mine, not the hon. Gentleman's.

Dominic Grieve: My apologies to my hon. Friend are profuse. As I was not in the House at the time, perhaps my remarks reflect my having read the specific section of Hansard that contains the hon. Gentleman's contribution. I should have remembered that the Bill was my hon. Friend's, as I was present during the passage of the Football (Disorder) Act 2000 and I recall his contributions in relation to it. A bell should have rung in my mind that he was the author of the earlier legislation.

Simon Hughes: I must put it on record that, as the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) knows, I was trying to intervene to render unto him the honour that he is due for the legislation. I would not have wanted to claim it, although it was a perfectly proper initiative to bring to the House.

Dominic Grieve: On that happy note, I return to the point at issue. The Minister rightly pointed out that when the Bill came before the House in summer 2000I read Hansard, including my own contributions on that occasionthe critical issues centred around sections 14 and 21. He would acknowledge, however, that the focus was on section 21 in particular.
	Section 14 raised the question of an exception to the criminal law that a system of complaint could be seen to work, although there were considerable anxieties about the standard of proof that should be applied in such circumstances. There were fundamental anxieties in respect of section 21 as to how the Bill would interfere with people's legitimate right to move freely out of the country. They would find themselves arbitrarily stopped and subject to a procedure at an unexpected time, which might cause them great inconvenience. That could be considered to be a serious infringement of their human rights.
	The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that that particular issue has not specifically been the subject of a human rights challenge. As I understand the cases that took place this summer, they centred on the complaints procedure generally and, in some examples, the previous orders that were available.
	We must face the fact that the legislation is fairly draconian. In fairness to the Government, they considerably altered the proposals as a result of representations. I recollect that detention was to have lasted 24 hours, but that was reduced to four hours, or six if an inspector wanted and authorised that. We also considered the question of being able to admit in proceedings the acts of a public authority, whatever that might mean. That seemed to be a question of simple administrative convenience, which, as the Minister will acknowledge, raised a genuine problem.
	As the Minister said, 965 arrests were made following the events in Belgium, but I remember the Home Secretary acknowledging that the Belgian police accepted that a large number of those arrested would have been guilty of nothing, so the figure provided a poor guide to the level of disturbance and an even poorer guide if it were applied to whether a banning order should be made.
	Again, the Government listened and they introduced the notion of a reasonable ground for the constable to detain. Furthermore, the reasons would have to be given in writing, which was not the case previously, and, most notably, we considered the notion of compensation were there to be wrongful detention. The Minister can confirm that. I have no statistics, nor has the House, as to what compensation may have been paid to any individual as a result of the application of section 21. I would be grateful if, through the Minister's advisers, we ascertained whether such compensation has been paid and how much.

John Denham: Let me endeavour to help the hon. Gentleman. My understanding is that no compensation has been paid, though I shall check that during the debate.

Dominic Grieve: I thank the Minister for that answer. That brings me to the nub of the issues that we have to face. He has acknowledgedindeed, he knowsthat just before the summer recess we renewed the order for a further 12 months. I know from reading Hansard that points were made about the opportunity that more time would offer to assess the impact of those draconian measures.
	For reasons that I do not fully understand, the Minister has decided on the back of the success in Germany that the time has come to introduce a completely new initiative and get rid of the sunset clause so as to make the measures permanent. Our anxiety is based not on the principles on which the Government operatedindeed, when the Bill came before the House last year, we understood those principlesbut on the fact that we face an astonishing paucity of information about how, in practice, the legislation affects individuals.
	In an intervention, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey made the point that few people have been affected by the measures, saying that most orders arise from convictions and asking whether that was not a reason for not allowing the measures to proceed? I do not entirely agree. If a small number of people are being caught properly by the system, and bearing in mind that it takes only a small number of people to initiative violence at football matches or in their vicinity, that may be persuasive and good reason for maintaining the legislation as it stands. Against that, however, we must assess how the legislation affects individuals.
	In that regard, all that we have to go on is the latest document, and I must tell the Minister that it makes worrying reading. It notes that there were 80
	Section 21A Police Detentions at England and Wales Exit Points
	and that 13 people were detained and released to travel. So, for starters, 13 people who were detained, presumably for between four and up to six hours, were released, having been inconvenienced, to continue their journey. Section 21B notices were issued to 67 people.
	Then we come to the bland statement that is the only information that the House has to go on as to how one of the measures passed by Parliament is affecting people's liberties. Under the heading Outcome of Court Proceedings Prompted By Issue of Section 21B Notices, the document notes that 36 banning orders were imposed, nine banning orders were refused and that 22 court proceedings were adjourned with a travel ban temporarily upheld.
	I assume that those statistics are right. I mean no criticism of the Minister when I say that it does not need a great mathematics exercise to see that the position has been shifting. Getting an updated position for the House to consider is difficult and this latest example seems to be as close as we shall get to one. However, the statistics relate to only one match. We do not have full statistics relating to the whole period so that we can make a complete assessment. We have simply to consider the German experience of the Germany-England match. It appears that some 31 people

John Denham: The hon. Gentleman says that we have no other statistics. In my speech I referred to a report that was laid before the House in June which also includes statistics. It is true that more recent figures are broken down in more detail, and I shall endeavour to provide him with a consolidated set of figures before we reach Committee.

Dominic Grieve: Again, I am grateful to the Minister. He is right: the earlier document does include some broad statistics, but they are not very informative. We are told that 44 orders were made on complaint and that 30 section 21B notices were issued preventing travel and initiating on complaint banning-order proceedings. However, we do not know the outcomes. If I am wrong about that, any information that the Minister can provide will be gratefully received. I have certainly searched.

John Denham: I gave the hon. Gentleman that information in response to his intervention earlier in the debate, but I should be happy to write to him to give him all the facts.

Dominic Grieve: I thank the Minister. I made a note of what he said, but before I came into the Chamber the House did not have that full information. That is a source of anxiety because these processes were the subject of much comment last year, and I have re-read the comments that I made on 17 July 2000 at column 123. There had been a lot of debate involving the then Secretary of State for the Home Department, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), about how ponderous the system would be. How long would it last? To what extent would people be dragged into an administrative and bureaucratic system that required many court attendances and that would interfere with their liberty and put a taint on them until it was resolved? The then Home Secretary took the view, which he was fully entitled to take, that that might be a price worth paying. However, he believed that, as the system bedded in, there were unlikely to be many problems. He seemed to believe that they could all be dealt with fairly expeditiously.
	The problem is not that the matter has not been dealt with expeditiously but that we simply do not have the relevant information. Yet the Minister is asking the House today to extend those measures to make them permanent. What is made permanent in the House is difficult to undo later.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman did not quite get to the end of his maths. Does he agree that, on the figures that we all havethose in the report that we were given today on the England-Germany game in Munichthe totals show that the majority of cases against people initially detained were not upheld. While I take the point that we do not need a majority to win the argument, in the case of the majority the intervention appears not to have been justified in terms of their loss of liberty.

Dominic Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is right if one considers the total figures for those actually stopped at exit points.
	It is difficult to know precisely what went on. If people were detained for only 15 minutes to check their identity, the House might feel that that was a price worth paying, but if people were detained for up to six hours, the House might take a different view. The House's real problem is that it is being asked to take an important decision nearly a full parliamentary Session before it needs to be taken and with what appears to be remarkably little information.
	I do not wish to take up much more of the House's time. The issues fall within a narrow compass and the House will have to come to a decision. The Minister said that some of the points can be cleared up in Committee and I hope that they can. Given the content of the Bill, I anticipate that the Committee stage will be fairly short. Unless the Minister or the Committee Chairman is prepared to extend a certain amount of indulgence to those who wish to table probing amendments to ascertain exactly how the Bill will work in practice, we could easily find ourselves back in this Chamber on Third Reading no better informed than we are now about how the legislation will work.
	The fact that few orders have been used is a good thingthe fewer the better. Any change to the ordinary course of criminal justice is undesirable. However, the fact that only a few orders have been used does not mean that the rights of a few should be forgotten. I remain unconvinced and undecided whether the time has come, in the light of the good results of the Germany match, to endorse the legislation until kingdom come. In those circumstances, the Conservative party will not oppose Second Reading. However, unless during the passage of the Bill, which is likely to be brief and rapid, some cogent and proper evidence is presented to us on how the legislation will affect individuals, there must be a serious question mark over whether the Government should be able to carry the Bill through without opposition.
	I hope that the Minister who winds up the debate will take the opportunity to set out clearly the detail of how the Bill will work. If that cannot be done today, it must be done before the Committee stage starts. I urge the Government to give us an opportunity in Committee to look at these matters; otherwise, we shall do a disservice to civil liberties in this country for what appears to be a bad reasonthat there has been a successful football match and that therefore we can introduce something now that could wait another nine months.
	I hope that the Minister will take my comments in good part, because the Opposition's purpose is to be co-operative on this matter. We fully understand what the Government seek to achieve, but that is not a good reason to impose on individuals a bureaucratic system and process that ultimately does not treat them fairly.

Clive Betts: In general, I welcome the Bill and the fact that we are renewing it on a permanent basis.
	I was interested in what the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), had to say. I accept that there is a trade-off and that the process of this legislation will on occasions catch individuals who, if allowed to attend an England game abroad, would cause no problems. However, we must recognise that, as well as those people's civil rights, there are the civil rights of many people who live abroad, whose countries England fans have visited, provoking mayhem among the local population and attacking individuals and property. Legislation to stop those people travelling abroad will affect the hard core of English fans who cause those difficulties.
	The Opposition must recognise that we are talking about a minority of English fans, but a significant minority who have inflicted violence and attacked others when they have gone abroad. Within that minority there is probably a smaller, very hard-core minority of people who instigate, lead and provoke the trouble. This legislation is targeted at those people in particular.
	I attended a number of matches in Euro 96, the World cup in 1998 and the European championships in Holland in 2000, and I witnessed the completely different attitudes of fans. The approach of many foreign fans who come to this country is totally different from the past behaviour of England fans abroad.
	I was in Sheffield during the 1996 European championships when we had the Danish supporters. No fans are more enthusiastic about supporting their country than the Danes. They did not hold back from drinking: they drank Sheffield pubs dry in the city centre, but that did not provoke attacks or antagonism towards the citizens of Sheffield or the football fans of other teams. Their support and enthusiasm was totally directed at backing their team to the full.
	Unfortunately, as I have witnessed at first hand, all too often when some England fans go abroad the support for their team goes hand in hand with xenophobia and hatred of the country they are in and its citizens. It is revolting and nasty to behold. It comes out in chanting and in the personal dealings they have with the people of that country when they are in a bar, when they talk to passers-by or respond to ordinary citizens.
	I was in Marseille for the England game against Tunisia in the 1998 World cup. I do not blame English fans completely for what happened, because there was much provocation from some of the local supporters of north African origin. Nevertheless, a significant number of England fans were prepared to be provoked and a small number of them led the attack against that provocation. Far from the delights of mixing with the Danes in Sheffield in 1996, my experience of that game was of hiding under a table in a caf as glasses and chairs were thrown. I just missed the CS gas, as the caf owner recognised that some English supporters were not there to cause trouble and pulled us into the caf before he closed the shutters to avoid the police response to the attacks by the other England fans. That was an absolute disgrace, and it is no wonder that the people of that city wish that English fans had not descended on them.
	I remember going to a game in the early 1990s when Sheffield Wednesday ventured into Europeit was probably the last time it will do so for an awfully long time. After the game I asked some people in a bar whether they went to the match. They said, No, we were frightened about what English fans would do. A couple of years ago another English team came whose fans wrecked the town. What an appalling reputation we have. People were frightened to go to their own home football club to see a game because of what English fans might do to their town. Possible unfair action under this legislation against one or two individuals should be balanced against the behaviour of English fans abroad in the past and the desire of people in countries where England are to play for Parliament to take firm action to control that small minority and to prevent them from going abroad.
	I support the legislation. There is a balance of civil rights to be made, and I believe that we have got it just about right. We shall discuss this matter again in the future, but it would be wrong at this stage to weaken the legislation and to change the balance to the detriment of the people of the cities where England are playing and of the vast majority of English fans who want to go abroad to enjoy the game.
	Many English fans who go abroad are also affected by the appalling behaviour of the minority of supporters who cause difficulties. I went to see the England-Romania game in Toulouse during the 1998 World cup. I walked through the main square with a friend and we started talking in a low voice about the appalling chanting and behaviour of some English fans in the square. I did not realise that someone was listening to our conversation. He confronted me and was joined by two or three of his friends, who started accusing us of not supporting England and of supporting the IRA. They accused us of all sorts of things because we dared to challengein a conversational way, as we were not speaking to themthe appalling xenophobic, racist chanting. I was assaulted. The person would not listen to any comment, and when we tried to walk away he started throwing punches.
	That was an England fan responding to another England fan. Such people are not merely xenophobic and racistthey support the British National party and its viewsin the attitude they take towards foreigners when they go abroad, they also make life hell for many ordinary English fans who go with the team. To prevent the small minority of troublemakers from going abroad is right for that reason as well.
	The target of the legislation is right. I refer back to the proposal that every football supporter in this country should have a membership card that they must show before they are allowed into a football game. That was the policy of the Conservative Government when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister. That proposal was wrong, because it tried to criminalise all football fans and to make them responsible for what was going on in the game. It did not target the individuals who cause the real difficulties. The Bill is different because it pinpoints and attacks those people who are likely to cause problems and prevents them from doing so.
	What we have done in the game in this country, which must be reflected when English fans go abroad, is to make the grounds more welcoming for the ordinary fan, so that more women and children go to matches. When such an atmosphere is created and grounds are full, it is much more difficult for the yobs, the hard cases and the racists to engage in their activities. That has happened in the premiership, as we have decriminalised English football. People who go to a game are there to enjoy themselves. We have tried to target the hard core minority, and to make the game more acceptable and more welcoming for families.
	I was in Eindhoven for the European championships in 2000. Many of the fans were women and childrenfamilies. The attitude before the game had a different feel. The reason there were no problems was that the activities of the hard core, who were still there to some extent, were diluted as a result of the different approach that was taken.
	I agree with my right hon. Friend about the response of the police in the game against Germany in Munich. Co-operation between police in this country and police abroad is vital. Much of the Bill is based on the evidence and knowledge that our police have, which can be transferred to foreign police forces, so that they can be on the look out for people who are likely to cause problems.
	I draw a contrast between the response of the police in Munich and the events in Marseille. The French police were hopeless. The violence should never have happened, but the police must have known that there would be trouble with English fans in a city such as Marseille, especially as some of the locals were also looking for trouble. When we walked to that caf that night there was no sign of police officers on the streets or on the street corners. There were a dozen or 20 police officers grouped together in riot vans at 300 yd or 400 yd intervals, but they were there to police the riot when it happened and not to control the situation and monitor the crowd to prevent trouble from breaking out.
	In Eindhoven, the Dutch police were in groups of two here and three or four there. They were on the spot, giving a clear signal to fans about what would happen if trouble erupted. There were small disturbances from time to time, but the police were immediately on the scene from 10 yd away. They talked to the fans beforehandit probably helped that most of them spoke English. They showed that they were in control of the situation and were going to police it effectively and reasonably but strongly right from the beginning.
	I talked to the British police after that event, and they drew a contrast between the way in which the Dutch police had behaved in Eindhoven and the approach of the Belgian police in Charleroi, who saw their job as that of policing riots rather than preventing trouble in the first place. There was no excuse for the violence, but it is important to recognise that our police have, by and large, got it right. They have changed their approach from the 1980s. They are around in numbers on street corners outside the grounds, and they mix with the crowd rather than try to control trouble once it has broken out. It is important that we pass that approach on to foreign police forces.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) spoke earlier about racism in this country, and about misbehaviour of that kind at football grounds. I applaud what the Football Association and football clubs are trying to do about awareness of racism, but I suspect on occasion that some of the campaigns are simply that. I have seen stewards stand by at football grounds, observe racist chanting, and do nothing. I wonder how many stewards who will attend English football matches next weekend will have been given any kind of racial awareness training. How many will have been taught about legislation against racist chanting, and how many actions have been taken against people for racist chanting at football matches over the past 12 months? My guess is that the number of actions is in single figures.
	I believe that football clubs are very good at campaigns, butperhapsnot nearly as good at some of the practicalities as they should be. 8 pm

Simon Hughes: I am very happy, in some ways, to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), although I cannot follow him on his round-Europe tour of England away games. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) said that Sheffield clearly looks after its MPs; during the last Parliament, the Labour Whips Office clearly looked after its Whips slightly better than some other colleagues. I own up to watching one England away gamethe Finland qualifying match, which turned out to be deadly dull, but very calm. If the hon. Gentleman wants to give us tips on how to ensure that we all have tickets for the World cup finals next year, however, I shall be open to offers after the debate.
	As the Minister implied, following last month's horrendous events and statements on the international emergency, on Parliament's return we are back to business as usualand rightly so. In a way, it is also right that we are debating football, our national game. I want, therefore, to say something before we deal with the bad side of football, which is created not by supporters but by hooligans. The hooligans are not fans but people who tarnish the name of football and the enjoyment of many supporters, as Members throughout the House agree. On behalf of some of my colleagues, and, I would guess, the whole House, I want first to share the joy that I feel about one development.
	When we left for our summer holidays, it was pretty unlikely that England would qualify for the World cup, but a phenomenal game in Munich exceeded all expectationsMichael Owen and Beckham, among others, played out of their skins. That was followed by a home game, which we all watched with growing fear and disbelief until David Beckham, to his huge personal credit, again redeemed us in the final few seconds.
	On behalf of the House, I thank the England team. In particular, I thank its captain not just for his performance on the pitch but for his role-model performance in response to questions and in interviews too. Under his captaincy, we have a team to be proud of and we hope for great success in Korea and Japan next year. The finals will take place while Parliament is sitting, although we may have a quick half-term break. If colleagues think that they can swan off to the far east for four weekswith a couple of honourable exceptionsthey have another think coming.
	Sadly, however, the debate is not on the merits of football and its great successes and prospects but on the nasty things that happen around its periphery. In that context, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) reminded us, we return to a core debate that has been a thread running through what other Members have said today. I refer to the issue of how we are to deal with the minority of criminals, or troublemakers, without removing the liberties of the law-abiding citizens who constitute the majority. That debate is very similar to the debate about how to deal with terrorists. This question, happily, is in a way less seriousit is on a smaller scalebut it involves the same set of issues, and it is very important.
	We have gained another addition to the evidence and experience that were available to us before the summer. The Minister rightly reminded us that in July both Houses had short debates about whether to extend the current legislation for a yearfrom August this year until August next year. All parties in both Houses agreed that, whatever our views on substance and the core of the legislation, there was logic in continuing it for that second year, which we permitted when we passed the Bill a year ago.
	Since then, England's only away game was in Munich. I was grateful to receive the report that arrived today, although its arrival was pretty much at the eleventh hour. We now have to make decisions.
	I note that, in the Queen's Speech, the Government committed themselves to the introduction of legislation to extend the life of the Football (Disorder) Act 2000. I am aware of the semantics, but the wording did not refer to making the Act permanent. I agree with what Members of both other parties said when we last debated the matter. Our view is that there may be an argument for extending the life of the Act, but we are absolutely not persuaded that there is an argument for making it permanentwhich, in relation to banning orders on complaint and without conviction, is something that the Minister proposes.
	Since we last debated these matters, we have also seen a short report and press release from the National Criminal Intelligence Service. I pay tribute to NCIS and to Bryan Drew and the team, whom I have met. I also pay tribute to those who now do the football intelligence work, very well and very professionally. They collaborate efficiently with their colleagues in other European countries to ensure that when there are away games, or when teams come here, we gain the maximum benefit from police intelligence and experience the minimum destruction.
	I echo what was said by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe. There is all the difference in the world between the way in which some countries have policed football games and the way in which others have done so. Some have policed them extremely well. Everyone seems to agree that the Dutch are pre-eminent in that regard: they appear to have understood that the psychology requires not confronting people at the last minute, but ensuring that police and people work together and see themselves as being on the same side. That is a lesson that we need to learn for the purpose of policing games in this country as well as abroad.
	Let me mention a local experience. I chaired a meeting in my constituency the other day that dealt with precisely this issue. We are just over the boundary from the New DenMillwall's ground. The team has been promoted. It is a very good team with very good supporters: it is a very good club, on its way up to the premier league. In the meantime, as with all clubs, there are a few people who attend matches to cause trouble. We have to take steps to manage that.
	Some members of the public expressed strong views to the police. They said, for instance, Please do not always turn up in large numbers in riot gear at the beginning. Sometimes you wind up people who are on the periphery. They did not mean the hard core who would turn up anyway, or those whoas the Minister saidmeet three miles away and get in touch, on mobile phones, with the supporters of the other team in order to arrange a ruck somewhere near the ground a bit later on. Nor did they mean those aged 14, 15 and 16 who hang around for a bit of after-school trouble. Those whom they meant are often 30, 35 or 40. They should certainly know better, and we must all make sure that we deal with them both at home and abroad.
	As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said, this is hardly a large Bill. It contains three clauses, but only one is substantive, and even it constitutes a fairly small amendment. The Bill will not, therefore, occupy a huge amount of time in Committee. It does, however, raise the two important issues left over from our debate a year ago. I will not repeat that we had to work pretty hard against the clock to get the Bill into anything like reasonable shape following the outlandish proposals advanced by the Government at the outset. We are reminded that they originally wanted a 24-hour detention power, which was mercifully reduced to four hours with a plus two option to bring it up to six. There was meant to be the ability to detain people with no record of violence, and there was no sunset provision. Following guillotined debates in both Houses, we managed to secure some improvements.
	The procedure was disgraceful, as the Bill was pushed through against the clock. In the Commons, there was no separation between Committee and Report. There were huge complaints in the Lords, as an undertaking given to Cross Benchers that they would be able to table amendments on Third Reading was not honoured. Nobody considered the resulting legislation successful. Even Ministers did not argue strongly that it was good legislation.
	Lord Harris of Greenwich, then the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip in the Lords, who has sadly since died, said:
	It is difficult to understand in this extremely badly drafted, badly thought-through Bill what happens to Irish citizens who also have British passports.[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 July 2000; Vol. 616, c. 470.]
	My noble Friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury said:
	This Bill came to us in a tawdry and inadequate state and leaves us in that condition. There has not been a single major concession to the fears expressed not just by the Opposition but from the Government Benches.[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 July 2000; Vol. 616, c. 475.]
	My noble Friend Lord McNally, who led for us in the Lords, made similar comments. The Bill hardly got a ringing endorsement. On all the major Divisions, although the Government obviously carried the day in the Commons, there was support from all three major parties for amendments designed to change the nature of the Bill.
	Liberal Democrat Members, along with Conservative Members and others, do not intend to force a Division on Second Reading. We will seek to amend the Bill after that. Our position has consistently been that there is no case so overwhelming that it could justify a banning order being applied where there is no previous conviction. It is perfectly reasonable for the Minister to argue that one may want to take action on video evidence of people misbehaving on the streets of Munich, even if that has not led to a conviction, but the figures published in the two reports and in parliamentary answers in both Houses show that all but one of those who have had banning orders confirmed by the courts have previous convictions for violence.
	We want to amend the Bill to allow convictions not only for football-related violence but for any violence to be the basis for an application for a banning order, but there is all the difference in the world between a conviction for violence or public order offences and an assumption of guilt without a conviction.

John Denham: For the hon. Gentleman's information, the legislation as it stands allows non-football-related violence to be taken into account, so there is no need for such an amendment.

Simon Hughes: Exactly. We want to retain that provision and not to have the additional power to make banning orders where there is no relevant conviction.

David Wright: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it has been the practice in some countries to remove English and other football supporters without charging them? Do we not need some mechanism to stop those people travelling in future?

Simon Hughes: That was the Minister's argument, but the answer is not as simple as the hon. Gentleman thinks. After the Charleroi games in Belgium, many people were shipped home who had committed no offence. One should not be able to pray in aid in seeking a banning order the fact that a foreign country's authorities prevented people from seeing a match, even though they were not convicted of any crime. There is also a question about whether video footage of people misbehaving abroad should be able to be prayed in aid. There is an argument for that, but there is a stronger argument for ensuring that people who commit offences, no matter where, should be nicked, charged, prosecuted and convicted. The best evidence that someone is a hooligan is a conviction for hooliganism.
	It is a dangerous road to go down to allow people's liberties to be taken away when there has been no conviction. We will have the same debate in relation to terrorism. In the criminal justice system in which I was brought up, liberties are normally restricted only after a conviction has been secured in a court, not when video footage or allegations suggest that someone may or may not be guilty.
	As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said, we are considering the Bill only one year and three months after the original legislation completed its passage through the House, and one year and two months after it reached the statute book. The present Act runs until the end of August next year, after the friendlies and the World cup. It is premature to make the judgment now. In their manifesto, the Government said that they wanted to extend the life of the legislation but not to make it permanent.
	In considering Lords amendments in July 2000, the Minister's predecessor said that he was willing to contemplate a sunset clause for a longer period, as well as annual renewal. We propose, as a concession in the Government's direction, that the legislation should lapse after a maximum of five years and that it should have an annual renewal if we think that the evidence justifies it.
	I will happily talk to Conservative Front Benchers and I hope that we can agree that we must be able to have periodic reviews of such legislation on the basis of the evidence. That will mean that we can take into account the points that have been made about evidence from abroad, but if it appears, nine months from now, that almost every single person who has been the subject of a banning order has previous convictions, that will be a strong argument for allowing detention or banning orders only where there are such convictions.
	This is a serious matter, because we never envisaged that people would be detained and taken to a court that effectively precluded them from going to a game even though it never decided that there was evidence that they should not go. That is a separate matter from having a temporary banning order when a case has not been concluded.
	My colleague in the Scottish Parliament, the Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice, is responsible for the legislation in Scotland, but we did not manage to iron out the anomaly that if one leaves from a Scottish port to go to a game in England, the law does not apply.
	We will debate emergency legislation on terrorism, and there is a logical argument for passing not specific legislation on football, but legislation that deals with people who have committed violent offences and may be violent abroad, irrespective of whether that violence is related to football. We should also consider such matters in the context of public order.
	I thinkcivil servants will know this better than I dothat there are now eight recent football-related measures, and they ought to be pulled together so that we have one coherent football-related Act. We left the complicated issue of whether to accept convictions abroad unresolved during the previous debate.
	I shall end on a point that unites us: we agree that one of the troubles in this country, especially in England, has been not only that we have been far too violent at home as a nation and as a people, but that we have often exported our violence abroad, to the disrepute of our country. We must all work together, regardless of our differences on the Bill, to reduce violence in Britain, especially that caused by alcohol, and to ensure that we restore our reputation as not only good sports, but peaceful sports supporters, andwho knows?we might even become more successful, although we appear to be doing relatively well now, for which we are very grateful.

Stephen Hepburn: The Minister referred in his opening remarks to the recent tragedy in America and said that it puts this debate into perspective. Football is a beautiful game, but at the end of the day it is still only a game. We are debating the Bill tonight because some people view football as more than a game; they use it as a disguise that enables them to get away with their criminal activities by hiding in crowds. Of course, by going among the genuine football fansI am one, as are other hon. Members who have spoken tonightthose morons cause havoc and hide behind the various team colours.
	Is it not a disgrace that, on a day when the House heard statements on international terrorism, we find ourselves discussing football hooliganism? We are all ashamed of those cowardly thugs who masquerade as supporters. We can only draw a comparison between those cowards and the brave young men in the forces who are currently on the verge of fighting terrorism abroad. Some older people in my constituency ask, Why don't you bring back national service, because that will tackle the hooligans? That would be the worst thing to do because those cowards should not besmirch the great uniform of the armed forces.
	The Bill has been introduced for two reasons, to which the Minister alluded earlier. First, it is intended to protect our national game, which is loved by fans up and down the country. None of us, whether or not we are football fans, will ever forget the shameful images screened on our televisions during France 98 and Europe 2000. We must not forget that those images nearly led to a ban on the English team and clubs from all future European competitions.
	Secondly, we must protect the good reputation of our country and its citizens abroad. The sight of hooligans wearing our national colours and rioting in the streets of foreign capitals damages our standing as a nation not only in Europe but all over the world, because those scenes are beamed via satellite to Australia, the far east and America. Such scenes cause lasting damage, so I am delighted that the joint action to tackle hooliganism taken by the Football Association and the Government following those disgraceful television scenes seems to be having an early impact, as was shown in the recent England game.
	The FA acted responsibly by disbanding the England Members Club, which in many people's opinion became a haven for English thugs travelling abroad under the guise of being decent English fans. By intermingling with decent fans, the hooligans slip into European countries and do their damage. The new Englandfans travel club, which the FA has step up, should stop that. By carrying out stringent checks on its members, it will be more difficult for bogus fans to get tickets to travel to international games. Of course, the changes introduced by the FA would not be enough on their own to stop a determined hooligan, so the Government need to act decisively if we are to avoid a repeat of France 98 and Euro 2000. That is even more important now that we are facing the qualifiers for the World cup in 2002.
	Hard action was needed, and hard action was taken. Concerns have been expressed tonight and by civil liberty groups that the Government's measures are too draconian, but most people in my constituency, whether or not they are football fans, would not call them draconian; they would call them common sense. Long before such banning orders were introduced, my constituents were asking, When on earth will you stop those thugs travelling abroad willy-nilly, ruining our international reputation? The ability to issue banning orders for non-football-related offences was well received.
	The test of the new policy of the Government and the FA was always going to be the vital Germany v. England World cup clash. In the run-up to the game, 500 fans were prevented from travelling abroad and eight people were arrested at various airports throughout the United Kingdom. It must be stressed that those people were not just randomly rounded up and prevented from travelling; they were known troublemakers, who had no interest in football at all, other than using it as a cover for their criminal activities. The outcome was a brilliant England victory, almost free of violence. A small number of German hooligans, not English fans, were blamed for the small amount of violence that took place. That would not have been the case if the orders had not been in place and English fans could have travelled, willy-nilly, and been infiltrated by the thugs.
	Although Parliament is involved in solving the international crisis, it is important not to forget domestic issues such as hooliganism at our domestic games. Hooligans, of course, hide behind team colours wherever they arewhether in the United Kingdom, or when travelling abroad under England team colours. The introduction of closed circuit television at grounds, police firmness and other actions taken by clubs have moved the violence away from football grounds to shopping centres, railway stations and pubs. However, we know that the violence still occurs. More than 3,000 arrests were made at football fixtures last year, and we need to stamp out such violence if we are to protect the glittering image of the premiership. With all due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke), who is a director of Northampton Town football club, we must remember that the reputations of the other clubs in the other English leagues need to be protected.
	The measures in the Bill have been tried and tested in the harshest circumstances and have proved to be a success, but I have a word of caution that I hope the Minister will take on board. We cannot be left to act alone. Football hooliganism is not just an English disease; it happens in other parts of the world and, sometimes in European countries, at a far greater level. Although foreign Governments do not condone hooliganism within their countries, they take a far more lenient attitude than we do. If we are to stamp out the problem altogether, we must take a joint European approach.
	The Bill's provisions are measured and targeted. They have made a difference already, and they will make a difference in future. However, there is no room for complacency. We must always protect the one thing that is important: the crown jewel of sport in this country and the world that is our soccer.

Simon Burns: Members on both sides have said that the Bill is extremely modest. If one strips out the standard provisions, such as the commencement date and the clause on expenses, one is left with a simple clause that, on the face of it, appears extremely modest. However, when one studies in depth the Bill and the amendments that it seeks to make to previous legislation, one realises just how significant and far reaching the Government's proposals are.
	The Government are seeking to extendin effect, for everthe provisions that were contained in the Football (Disorder) Act 2000 and that had a time limit. I have heard the reasons for that and I must confess from my knowledge of the background that I have a slightly different perspective. When I introduced a Bill in 1998, I was united with the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), in that I wanted my Bill to contain precisely the proposals that we are now debating and that will remain in place for as long as the legislation is on the statute book.
	I considered many other provisions in my Bill extremely worth while and badly needed in helping to tackle a pressing problem that was constantly dragging the reputation of English football, in particular, and this country into the gutter. I felt that that problem could no longer be tolerated. However, as I said in the Committee considering my Bill, I concluded that the mechanism of a private Member's Bill was not the right one to put on the statute book highly contentious measures that struck at the heart of civil liberties. I argued that the Government should introduce them in their own legislation and be backed by their in-built majority in the House. When I decided to introduce amendments in Committee, I thought that I had a deal with the Government that they would introduce such legislation. Ultimately, they did and I supported them.
	There is another discrepancy in the accounts given of the history of this Bill, and that is the view that the extension of the legislation is a natural conclusion. Labour Members' remarks on the Bill's time scale and the decision-making processes involved do not quite square with the facts. I do not want to strike a particularly discordant note, but the fact is that the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), was desperate, as parliamentary time was running out, to get the Football (Disorder) Act 2000 on the statute book before the summer recess. He wanted the powers in that Act to be in place in time for the England v. France match to be played at the beginning of September that year.
	That Act contained highly contentious provisions and was open ended in its effect. The Government were concerned that they would either lose it in another place or not get it through before the summer recess, so they wisely and sensibly compromised. In effect, they bowed to the pressure coming particularly from Members of the other place and they introduced a sunset clause.
	We are now 12 months down the line and it is logical and consistent that the Government should come to the House with this modest and far-ranging Bill. It is right that the state should have the powers necessary to deal with this problem. It should have them for as long as the legislation remains in force and until any future Parliament may have a change of mind and reverse the decision of this Parliament and of the previous one that approved the 2000 Act.
	I do not have a problem with the legislation, because for far too long this country has had to tolerate the inane, asinine and disgraceful behaviour of a very small minority of mindless thugs and hooligans. It is an insult to football supporters to call those people football supporters, because most of them are not. Life has moved on and they are criminals and thugs. Like leeches, they cling to the game to advance their agendas, whether that is to engage in simple mindless violence or, equally seriously, to further the criminal interests of those who are involved in organised crime and who latch on to the game and the crowds who attend football matches as law-abiding citizens. This state needs to take decisive and, I accept, draconian action, because we have had to put up with such behaviour for far too long.
	One other thing concerns me. Of course we have a duty to protect the civil liberties of the minority, but we also have a duty to protect the civil liberties of the majoritythe honest, decent and law-abiding citizens, and their families and young children, who simply want to go out for an afternoon or evening of entertainment to see two football teams opposing each other for 90 minutes at the highest levels of sportsmanship. For far too long and too often, the civil liberties of the majority have been trodden on remorselessly by the minority. There comes a time when we have to stop being goody two shoes, bending over backwards to protect the interests of the minority, and say, Enough is enough. We have given you your chances. You will not reform, so we are going to act to stamp out or minimise the continuing behaviour that causes so much misery and so many problems for our national sport. That is why I support what is happening and what is proposed.
	The Government have the majority that they require to win any Division on the Bill. I hope that noble Members in another place pay close attention to the strength of the will of the House, which will be demonstrated if we have to vote, and to our will as demonstrated last year, because we still have a problem. If one studies the statistics, it is clear that the number of arrests fell between 199293 and 19992000, mostly as a result of a dramatic decline in football violence inside stadiums. That happened for a variety of reasonspartly because of policing and stewarding and partly because of intelligence gathered. I join the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) in paying tribute to the work of the police and their intelligence network, because they do a fantastic job.
	In 200001, there has been a rise in the number of arrestsa relatively small one, but still a rise. If one includes the number of arrests from European club competitions and at international fixtures, the total is significant. There have been 4,162 arrests, of which 301 were at FA cup matches, 160 at Worthington cup matches, 35 at England home matches and 80 at England away matches. Since 1997, there has also been an increase in violent football-related offences, such as affray, running on to the pitch, racist chanting, throwing missiles and assault. I find those figures disturbing. Arrests for the offence of affray, for example, increased between 199697 and 200001, from 19 to 165; that is a significant increase. For the throwing of missiles, arrests increased from 11 to 107; arrests for assault increased from 19 to 137 and for violent disorder from 23 to 85. Those statistics are all for violent crime. Interestingly, however, the number of arrests for drink-related offences has fallen. That is encouraging, but the increase in arrests for violence in its different manifestations is a cause for concern and further illustrates the need and justification for the Bill.
	The number of arrests for racist and indecent chanting has also risen significantly. Is that because such episodes of disgraceful behaviour are happening more frequently, or because the law has been systematically tightened up and the FA and others have sought to highlight the problem and introduce constructive and workable ways of minimising it? If the latter is the case, that is a positive step forward; but if the former, it is disturbing.
	In conclusion, we cannot afford to pussyfoot around. I respect the views held by others on this matter, but we must concentrate on the civil liberties and rights of the majority and give them the protection that they richly deserve, which for too long has been threatened and taken away from them by the activities of the minority. For that reason, I believe that the Bill, however unpalatable it may be to some, is the right way forward. I hope that it becomes law during this parliamentary. Session, providing the authorities with another weapon to tackle a social disease that has bedevilled this country for far too long.

Andy Burnham: A number of hon. Members have made good points tonight, particularly the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). I will not cover the same ground in the course of my observations, but as I was an adviser to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport during the Euro 2000 tournament and, before that, to the Government's football taskforce, I hope that I can bring a useful perspective and some new observations to our proceedings.
	I speak with 20 years' experience of following Everton football club, home and away. I have been to many England games over the years, including the matches at France 98 and Euro 2000, and saw at first hand the incidents that provoked the Football (Disorder) Act 2000 and which the Bill is intended to confront.
	Some Membersmost notably the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes)have expressed concern about the civil liberties implications of the measures, and it is right that those implications be considered. However, I suggest that had those Members been in Marseille or Charleroi, seen the appalling scenes and felt the intense shame of being English, as I did on those occasions, they would have been persuaded to soften their view.
	The Bill deals with a unique problem, and that is why its measures are justified. It attacks the perception of some young men that they have a right to go overseas, flout the laws of another country and cause general havoc, supposedly in the name of supporting England. That is a liberty that they have taken for far too long and it must be curtailed. Football violence is a complex problem. By its nature, it is difficult to identify and confront. Blunt instruments are needed to deal with it. The Bill gives the authorities the tools that they need to prevent the scenes that have marred previous summers and tournaments.
	Hon. Members have suggested that the problems of supporting England abroad are caused by a few bad apples. Having seen the events at first hand, I do not accept that. England's away supporters traditionally attracted the worst elements of many football league clubs in this country. Until now, the whole culture of following England has been rottenhostile, xenophobic and racist. It encourages and endorses unacceptable behaviour, disrespect for others and disregard for the laws of other countries. Although the measures will help to root out the bad apples, many othersmost notably the Football Associationhave a responsibility to continue to purge the culture prevailing in English football support abroad.
	Before I come to my main point, I want to raise two specific issues that I would like the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), to address in his winding-up speech. First, for the legislation to work, proper enforcement is crucial. For all the sense that the spotter system used by the National Criminal Intelligence Service at recent major tournaments makes in principle, it is not working on the ground. In Marseilles and Charleroi, it was blatantly obvious to many of us who the troublemakers were and in which bars the first glass or chair was likely to be thrown. However, the authorities did not seem to reach the same conclusion. Once trouble began, it got out of hand very quickly and was then impossible to contain. I urge the Government to look closely at the spotter system and to take steps to make it more effective.
	Secondly, the success of the Bill depends in part on persuading other Governments to take action and to prosecute England football fans who are guilty of committing offences abroad. I understand the desire of countries on the receiving end of such appalling behaviour to deport the troublemakers at the first opportunity, but if they can be persuaded to prosecute and secure a conviction, it would help us to tackle the problem in the long term. That would give the British authorities immediate cause to impose banning orders, and would be a powerful deterrent to others.
	Perhaps the Government could come to an agreement with the Governments of countries where England is due to playstarting with Japan and Koreathat troublemakers will be prosecuted. If necessary, the Government could consider making a contribution to the costs that would be incurred by Governments pursuing such convictions.
	The Government are right to keep the Bill focused on the problems created by England followers abroad, but that brings me to my one substantive concern. I would not like the authorities in this country to use the powerful measures that the Bill will put at their disposal to crack down on football supporters in general. In discussing football violence, a clear distinction must always be drawn between the culture of following England abroad and that of following league clubs at home and away. They are very different. The latter provides great enjoyment to millions of law-abiding and decent men, women and children in this country. It is already heavily regulatedperhaps over-regulatedand there is no justification for any further steps to limit the few freedoms that football fans enjoy.
	On countless occasions, I have witnessed fans being unfairly treated by police or stewards, or unfairly ejected from football grounds, but because they are football fans, that is apparently okay. It is as if they have no recourse to argument or reason, but can just be taken out of the ground and that is that. I urge the Government to consider those concerns carefully and to ensure that the interests of people who support football week in, week out in this country are not weakened or undermined by the passing of this legislation. Subject to that proviso, I welcome the Bill, coupled with the steps that the Football Association has taken to abolish the England Members Club. I hope that, in the long term, it will transform the culture of supporting England abroad.
	It is possible to achieve this. At Goodison Park in the late 1980s, racist chanting and abuse were frequently heard and, I am sorry to say, tolerated by many. However, many true Evertonians did not accept it: they challenged it and slowly things began to get better. Now, I am proud to say that Everton football club has its first ever black club captain. That proves that it is possible to break the hold that a nasty element can have over following a club or country. The measures being adopted will help, but it will take all decent England supporters to stand up and be counted and reject the behaviour of those who bring shame on this country.

David Cameron: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who knows a lot about his subject. Not only is he a football fan, he is quite an accomplished cricket player, as I discovered during a game this summer.
	Many of those who have spoken in the debate or have written about the subject are either lawyers or football fans, but I have to confess that I am neither: I am just a novice parliamentarian who is trying to work out whether the draconian powers in the Bill are really necessary. I fear that my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) will decide that I am a member of the pussyfoot tendency when he hears what I have to say, but I believe that this is an important debate.
	The debate is important, first, because we are dealing with what has been a desperate problem for this countryfootball hooliganismand secondly, because we are discussing serious measures that will affect our freedoms. I accept that the background is one of overall success in football. As the hon. Member for Leigh said, there is less racism in football. Attendances are growing, accompanied by decreases in the number of offences, crimes and arrests. Football is one place where things are getting better.
	Like many hon. Members, I have always been struck by an uneasy feeling when England travels abroad to play football, not just because I want the team to win so much and fear that they will not do so, but because I fear that when I switch on my television set I will see terrible news about hooliganism and dreadful behaviour. However, I also feel uneasy about the Bill.
	I have no difficulty with the concept of banning orders or with the previous measure's provision combining international and domestic banning orders to stop people seeing football matches either at home or abroad. Neither do I have a problem with the idea of taking someone's passport away after a banning order has been looked at by the court. However, I have some difficulty with the concept of courts imposing bans on individuals who have no convictions, although I acknowledge the statement in the explanatory notes:
	The court must make the order if it is shown
	I repeat shown
	that the person has previously caused or contributed to violence or disorder in the UK or elsewhere and if it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a banning order would help prevent football related violence or disorder.
	At least in that case the defendant has his day in court.
	My real difficulty, which I am sure some hon. Members share, is with the police stopping individuals leaving the country becausewell, just because. That is the big question. Perhaps the police just do not like the look of the individuals concerned. The explanatory notes state that the police can
	give a person a notice . . . not to leave England and Wales, and under certain circumstances to surrender his passport, if the police have reasonable grounds for suspecting he has previously caused or contributed to violence.
	That is the difficult bitthe bit that leads one to ask what has happened to the concept of criminal proof in our criminal justice system, to our ability to travel freely, and to the crucial principle of innocent until proven guilty.
	The hon. Member for Leigh says that we are dealing with a unique problem, but is it unique? In a way, every crime is unique, but we do not resort to measures such as those in the Bill. That is why we must think very carefully about them. I instinctively trust the police; none the less, it makes me nervous when we give them increased powersespecially powers of the nature of those in the Billbecause it increases the chance of abuse. If we give the police too many extra specific powers, a few bad apples could give the police service a bad name. We should always think and debate carefully before we give more and more specific powers to the police. We should ask them to use everything else first.
	Are the police using all the possible intelligence to follow hooligans and to share information with other police forces? Are they doing everything to help the French, Dutch and Belgian police forces to arrest people in those countries instead of Parliament giving our police service more powers? Sometimes, even the police are nervous about being given extra specific powers. When I was a naive special adviser in the Home Office, I remember visiting the Police Federation. At that time the great concern was over identity cards and whether we should have them. A member of the federation said, If we have identity cards, we would need to have a power of arrest in respect of those not carrying cards, and that would be bureaucratic. Naively, I asked, What do you do now? He replied, We have the ways and means Act. I asked what it was, and he said, I stand on someone's toe and he calls me an expletive deleted, and I arrest him for a breach of the peace. Sometimes the police are sceptical about new specific powers.
	It must be said that there has been an enormous amount of legislation on football disorder. We have had the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol) Act 1985, the Public Order Act 1996 and the Football Spectators Act 1989. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe read out some of the Acts

Dominic Grieve: Beaconsfield.

David Cameron: I am sorry. Beaconsfield and Wycombe are not far from each other, but geographically I was wrong.
	We have had almost more football Acts than England victories abroad in certain years. There has been so much legislation and we should be nervous about passing so many Acts related to this one area of football. As my hon. Friend said, we want to see evidence that the Bill will be worth while.
	It is clear that there is evidence to show that there has been overall improvement. About 100,000 British fans have transversed Europe since Euro 2000, yet there have been only 43 reported arrests. However, is there evidence to support the specific powers that are set out in the Bill? The report to Parliament on that issue is helpful, and I have read it carefully, but, I hope that I am not alone in finding it rather thin. Could we not find a little more detail?
	Will the Minister be able to give us more detail about those who went to court and were not banned? How long did those cases take? Of the orders made by the police, how many did the courts eventually endorse? Which police forces have used the powers in the current Act? What did those forces find? What did they think of the powers set out in the Act? Could we have reports from magistrates or stipendiary magistrates who have dealt with the powers? Could we have reports from police authorities that have been using the current Act? Could such reports be placed in the Library so that we might see them?
	I would be grateful if the Minister were to say whether we have dealt with the anomaly that the Act did not cover people travelling from Scottish ports or airports to England matches. The issue was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) when the Act was last debated.
	In general, if we take away liberties we should do so only on the basis of the most serious and compelling evidence. There are Opposition Members who will be looking to those on the Government Benches to say more about that. Why are we renewing the Act before we have to, given that it takes away liberties? As we are renewing it, should we not renew every year the key clauses that I have mentioned? I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford on that point. We are dealing with important civil liberties. These are that people are innocent until proven guilty and the criminal standard of proof. I would like to see sunset clauses rather than the sun set permanently over some of the rights that we are considering.
	To sum up, most of us will support the legislation at the end of the day. We will back it because we are appalled, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford said most movingly, by the behaviour of a few thugs. In this country, on the whole, we trust the police and magistrates to behave reasonably and not abuse the powers that Parliament has given them. However, I hope that Members will forgive me for being a little nervous about taking away those liberties, even in those restricted categories. We are in desperate need of reassurance from the Minister. In a previous debate on the matter, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) said that there is no excuse for thuggish behaviour, but we should not respond to thuggish behaviour with thuggish laws. He made a good point; we need the reassurance of facts and figures before we take away people's rights in such important areas of civil liberty.

Ian Gibson: I am sure that the House will forgive me if I do not emulate the stories of Members who support the English national team. I do not have that problem as I support the Scottish national team; events and excitements there are few and far between these days. I also support Norwich City football club, where there have been very few problems over the yearsalthough I remember Manchester United fans tearing down the asbestos cladding at the back of the Barclay stand, which could, I suppose, be regarded as a piece of social engineering. On the other hand, they did that out of frustration. Scottish fans have not always been innocent. We took a fancy to the grass at Wembley one year and I confess that I was there. Much of the turf was removed to the chagrin of Jimmy Hill and others, but I noticed that it was replaced with much better quality grass by the following weekend.
	I had trouble finding instances of football disorder of which I had personal experience, so I turned to the usual source for understanding the problemacademic sociologists, who are part of a growth industry and have no trouble at all getting grants to undertake sociological studies of football hooliganism. I should like to take a little time to analyse some of the stuff that they have come out with. I might say that it does not add much to the debate, but it is interesting that they have done a lot of work.
	I shall give Members the titles of one or two papers that I have had the excitement of reading over the summer. Eduardo Archetti wrote an article entitled Playing Styles and Masculine Virtues in Argentine Football in Machos, Mistresses, Madonnas: Contesting the Power of Latin American Gender Imagery. Great reading. The Postmodernity of Football Hooliganism appeared in the British Journal of Sociology. Other articles are Football Hooliganism and the Practical Paradigm and Soccer Crowd Disorder and the Press: Processes of Amplification and Deamplification in Historical Perspective. I am sure that every Northampton fan would certainly benefit from that. An old friend of mine who, I remember, was quite a good goalkeeper, has gone back to Scotland and written The Cappielow Riot and the Composition and Behaviour of Soccer Crowds in Late Victorian Scotlandessential reading for analysis of the Bill. Faith, Hope and Bigotry: Case Studies of Anti-Catholic Prejudice in Scottish Soccer and Society is another article; there are others, such as Selling the Game Short. A mass of them have kept me busy for several nights.
	There are various explanations for football hooliganism, and I shall go through them quickly. There are as many explanations as there are sociologists in British universities. One explanation is that hooliganism
	involves deriving comfort, performing a social obligation, achieving recreation, discovering . . . identity, passing the time, being with others.
	People engage in it
	for an endless variety of other private personal reasons.
	We need to know why people pursue their recreation, as it were, by going to a football match. Some argue that the state of modern living creates the problems; the modern consumer life style increasingly lacks a sense of danger or ordeal, and people want to get rid of boredom. An extension of that is the Marcuse argument, which is a reaction against the surplus state repression. Some Members will identify with that, having written essays on it in their youth. The culture of pursuing danger, risk taking and creativity can involve exciting activities. We can fall off mountains or go on holiday in war zones; we do not need to have a punch-up at a football match to create that kind of excitement.
	I ask Members to bear with me for a few more minutes while I tell them about some more analyses. There is the gender-centred analysis involving aggressive, troubled, hegemonic or empowering masculinity. There is the neo-tribal hypothesis, with individuals promoting self-identity and self-definition. The structural Marxists have come in on it as well, with an attempt to reclaim the magical camaraderie and intimacy of a lost working class system of traditional communities. No doubt that is a favourite of many hon. Members present. The Leicester school says that hooligan participants are simply roughs. They are lower working class and just love violence. That is the result of a 200,000 sociological study.
	The police, too, have promoted some interesting analyses in Home Office documents, with references to
	Mafia-like command systems running football violence in Britain,
	with official statuses of generals, lieutenants, armourers and photographers who
	prey on innocent supporters motivated by outright wickedry.
	Gary Armstrong's latest book Football Hooligans is a story of Sheffield United fans. Sheffield seems to figure prominently in analyses of football. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), who is a great back four player, spoke earlier. As his manager, I do man-to-man marking analysis with him, and he is a wonderful man-to-man markerno violence, but my goodness, does he prevent the opposition from moving about in the penalty area.
	Gary Armstrong starts with the statement that the war against hooligans has a long way to go, whatever the definition of hooligans turns out to be. Reference has been made to the National Criminal Intelligence Service's report of 20 August this year. The report admits that violent football hooliganism continued to increase during last season. The incidents reported to the unit by football intelligence officers is significantly up on the same period last year. That seems to apply to all divisions, so the problem clearly exists.
	Armstrong's analysis questions the emphasis placed by the police on patrolling football matches. He thinks that their time would be better spent catching petty thieves and on burglary-related issues. He goes on to state:
	There will still be disturbances at and around football matches. Commentators will continue to moralise and pontificate and drone on about what lessons can be learned from various events, and sociologists amongst others will attempt to give a rationale to what are frequently irrational events.
	I can tell the House that sociological violence has broken out across the nation as each sociology department in every British university disagrees with all the others about their analyses.
	I doubt whether we will get to the explanation, despite the money spent on sociological analyses, and I doubt whether that will help us to develop policy, but I can assure the House that much effort has been put into the endeavour, and many young students are no doubt bored to death after being subjected to such sociological guff.
	Episodes will continue to happen and, as we say in Norfolk, there are wrong 'uns who will always be around, looking for a bit of trouble. The police have identified that in their document, where they state that in the close vicinity of stadiums they have been successful, but that the problem has been displaced. Other hon. Members have mentioned that tonight. It is recognised that the problem is moving from the football grounds.
	What are we to do about it? Again, I refer to Sheffield politicians. There have been many debates in the House in which Sheffield politicians have participated. I shall not name the individuals; hon. Members can spot them. In 1989 in the debate on the Football Spectators Bill, a Sheffield Member of Parliament welcomed hooliganism as an outlet for violence, but at the same time said that hooligans must be eradicated. The mind boggles at the thought of how he proposed to do that. There was a certain inconsistency in the argument.
	Other Sheffield Members called for a change in police attitudes to fans, and another hon. Member spoke of football's
	structure, greed and psyche, and its contempt for ordinary working class lads.[Official Report, 17 April 1989; Vol. 151, c. 28.]
	That was the Front-Bench spokespersonnot tonight, but in another arena. I see that some hon. Members recognise who that might be.
	The problem will continue and probably increase. The NCIS document states that
	there are some very encouraging signs. Banning Orders are having an impact and Human Rights challenges to Banning Orders have been recently rejected by the High Court; the Football Association have completely revamped their members' clubs to weed out troublemakers and the Belgian Presidency of the EU has called for each EU member state to establish a permanent national police information centre
	and so on. The police are encouraged by those developments.
	On balance, I think that the Government are right to take the problem seriously and to try to ensure an effective deterrent. Whatever the origins of football hooliganism, the development of that deterrent will prevent and discourage people from going to games in order to engage in such activity. I am serious about that because I do not want to read football headlines that argue about who threw the stone first, who punched who and so on. I want to hear about Iwan Roberts scoring a hat trick for Norwich City. Indeed, I will even go along with applauding a David Beckham goal and reading an analysis of the trajectory of the ball as it went into the top corner. Even considering a physical analysis of how such a shot works would be better than reading headlines about violence. Anything that we can do to detract from the bad headlines that we have had over the years is welcome. I believe that the Bill goes a long way towards achieving that and that the public will respect us for introducing it. We must support it.

Tony Clarke: The debate has been somewhat truncated, so I shall try to curtail my speech and keep to the relevant rather than the repetitive, in the hope that other Back Benchers may still be able to contribute.
	This debate gives us the opportunity to do two things. First, we must reaffirm our determination to combat and fight the football hooliganism that still exists. Secondly, we must review the question whether the 2000 Act, in its current context, has worked, is working and is making a difference. Within football, the figures show that 580 banning orders have been put in place. That has been done with the support and assistance of football supporters and of organisations such as the Football Supporters Association, which have given their unstinting and total support to the Government in trying to eradicate yobbery and thuggery from the game. They have even suggested that the measures did not go far enough in respect of the courts. They feel that, in many cases, courts could and should have done better in ensuring that banning orders were used to prevent known and convicted hooligans from travelling.
	Many hon. Members have mentioned Charleroi. One of the most stunning and worrying aspects of the violence that occurred in Belgium was that 24 of the 965 people who were arrested were known football hooligans. They had previous convictions and should have been picked up by the banning orders and prevented from travelling, but they still slipped through the net. Irrespective of our best intentions and attempts to prevent all circumstances in which people with criminal convictions can travel to games, some of them will find ways of avoiding our measures. Such people have no respect for the law or the restrictions that we introduce and will try to circumvent any attempt that we make to stop their illegal action.
	The vast majority of the 965 people who were arrested were released without charge and took no part whatever in any criminal activity and/or violence. Football fans, the FSA and others who have given the Government their support are due some return. If we are asking football supporters and true followers of the game to work with us and be part of our attempt to rid the game of hooliganism, we must give them our support when things go badly wrong, as they did in Charleroi. If anything, we need a way not only of dealing with hooligans, but of ensuring a proper code of conduct for police forces throughout Europe in respect of football events. What happened in Charleroi was an abuse of police powers. People were detained in the most terrible conditions, although it has since been proven that they were innocent of any offence.
	It is important for us to recognise that violence has been displaced over the years and has moved away from the event itself. It has departed from grounds and moved into areas that are unconnected with football. Irrespective of whether the Bill is permanent or will be reviewed, that displacement will be more important in future, when we consider how yobbish behaviour is affecting our national identity and shaming us as a nation. Violence and thuggery still exist.
	I shall quote from the press report of a recent incident at an international fixture:
	A steward was removed from the field on a stretcher with two broken ribs and a damaged spleen. Officials said Stephen Speight was hit on the head and kicked while on the ground. He was to spend the night in hospital.
	That report was of an international cricket fixture.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) wondered whether there was class distinction in the legislation. An earlier news report covered an Oxbridge ski tour at a resort in France. It described the participants as a mob of
	ignorant, arrogant middle class yobs,
	who abused foreigners and soiled their bedrooms and chalets.
	If we wish to descend further down the class structure, we can read another recent report of the behaviour of drunken yobs. It states:
	A bunch of drunken toffs caused mayhem in the Oxfordshire village of Kingston Blunt two weekends ago. The party was for Oxford University's Bullingdon Club, which involves its members, or 'Bullers', in a riotous drinking binge. One of them listed the alcohol they had knocked back; 'We started off with a Jeroboam' (about ten ordinary bottles' worth) 'of Perrier Jouet and got through eight bottles of Bolly a head.'
	The marquee 'was covered in broken crockery, splintered tables and the bodies of Buller men wearing tweed suits'. Among the gang was Lord Lawson's son, Tom, who had graduated from the university. Around 30 police eventually arrived to deal with the party, and they let the rich kids off with a caution.
	I mention that because yobbery, violence and thuggery exist in British society, and our nation is shamed by the acts of thugs, irrespective of whether they have a connection with football. When travelling abroad, I try to avoid Benidorm and Ibiza. However, I cannot be the only Member of Parliament who dreads not only the accommodation, but visiting the bar and the possible presence of 15 or 20 male British holidaymakers who seem dedicated to three pursuits: lubricating the larynx as often as possible; trying to charm the pants off any unfortunate member of the opposite sex who happens to be in the bartelevision programmes suggest that most of them do not wear anyand picking a fight with anybody, especially anyone who has the audacity not to speak the Queen's English.
	Examples of thuggery and violence can be witnessed in other events such as marches and demonstrations. In recent months, problems occurred in Geneva, and in the United Kingdom on May day. When we consider the identity of those involved and the infiltration of such events by, for example, right-wing organisations and thugs, we must accept that some people are hellbent on causing problemsnot only at football games but at other eventsthat shame our nation and the House. Such problems occur on Friday and Saturday nights at many restaurants and pubs in every town and city in the land.
	Violence and disorder are a moveable feast; they are played on different stages. I urge Ministers to develop a more robust and multi-faceted approach to tackling yob culture, and not simply to treat football in isolation. I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) for mentioning Northampton Town. I declare an interest as a club director, but we are rightly proud of the measures that we have taken to eradicate hooliganism, yobbery and racism and to ensure that football is an event to which people can bring families and enjoy themselves in peaceful surroundings without the threat of violence. We get fed up when people refer to hooligans as football fans. They are not fans; they never have been. They use football as a vehicle for thuggery and violence.
	In Committee, we must seriously consider the role of the media. We cannot support the fact that, before any violence and thuggery had occurred, every television camera at Charleroi was prepared to project such images around the world, thereby shaming Britain. It was almost a self-fulfilling prophecy. We expected trouble and the cameras were there, so we almost invited the thugs who wanted to unleash their criminal activity on us to do so.
	I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that I dissent from the Bill only in its title. Perhaps the word football should be omitted. Perhaps the House ought to discuss a disorder Bill that would prevent thugs from practising their yobbery wherever they wish to do so. Perhaps we should consider how to prevent people with criminal convictions from travelling to holiday destinations year on year to involve themselves in violence, shaming this nation.
	I hope that Ministers listen to the voices, even those on the Opposition Benches, that say that we must not stigmatise football and that we must not focus narrowly by considering only the longevity of a measure. We must look more widely at where violence can present itself and how it can be combated.

John Grogan: I have the misfortune to follow four powerful and well-informed speeches. Although the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) spoke from opposite sides of the House, they drew on their experience as special advisers, which is a brave boast to make tonight. We heard of the scholarship of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who I shall never consider in the same light again having heard of his holiday reading.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) drew on his experience as a football director and he was right to point out that violent behaviour is a problem for society as well as for football. The behaviour that we saw on the streets of Charleroi is repeated in many holiday destinations year on year and we need to examine our attitude to drink and the drinking culture. The licensing laws are relevant here. When English people go abroad, they suddenly find that they can drink through the night and they behave badly in many, many contexts. Football is a specific problem, however.
	Largely through the work and campaigning of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), we know what the typical football hooligan looks like. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh, as the typical football hooligan is not necessarily a young man. The average age of those who have suffered a banning order is 31 and of the 1,000 British people expelled during Euro 2000, only 50 were on benefits. The average football hooligan is not particularly young, as he is approaching middle age, and not particularly poor, as he is probably in a well-paid job.
	I have never supported England abroad and my club is Bradford City, so I have had precious little opportunity to follow it overseas. However, I went to a game during the last World cupJamaica against Croatia, which was a happy occasion. Jamaican families were present, as were Croatian youths who had crossed the continent to western Europe, perhaps for the first time, to support their team. Just along the way from me were three English fans, who were drunk. They completely dominated the atmosphere. Every time Croatia got the ball, they stood up and chanted in unison, You're all a load of collaborators! Presumably, that was a reference to the war, and they added expletives as well.
	The identity of English football fans abroad is based on attacking the IRA or looking back to the war. That has to change; it is absurd. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh correctly pointed out, not only a mindless minority are involved. Sadly, that xenophobic attitude is shared by a significant proportion of those who support England abroad, which is why the Government had to take strong action last year.
	The way in which we are considered by the rest of Europe has changed because of that legislation. A year ago, other European Governments were saying, Why didn't you introduce strong measures to deal with this? As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North pointed out, other European Governments are now considering copying our legislation. Indeed, there is a good sign that Belgium, which is soon to accede to the presidency of the European Union, has made dealing with football hooliganism throughout Europe one of its priorities. It held a seminar in May and proposes the creation of a system of national contact points on football and the establishment of common rules on the prevention of hooliganism.
	Thus at a time when other European countries are looking at the lead that we have taken it is entirely appropriate that we make this legislation permanent. So far, it has worked well. Where those subject to banning orders have needed to travel abroad there have been 30 instances in which, for work or family reasons, they have appealed and have quite properly been allowed to travel. This legislation is not draconian; it is measured and considered.
	Some hon. Members have talked of the importance of other nations prosecuting football hooligans abroad so that we have a firm basis on which to impose banning orders here at home. Over the summer, the Daily Express carried an exclusive under the byline Tony BanksI presume that he is no relationwhich quoted the director of security in Japan for World cup 2002 as saying:
	You cannot be certain, but it is highly likely that anyone caught here
	for football hooliganism
	will be put in jail.
	If they are convicted of a violent crime I would have thought a three or five-year sentence would not be too long.
	If we see the sort of things we saw in France 98, with that level of crime, people will go to jail. Charleroi at Euro 2000 was a disaster.
	Our football fans are warned.
	I also note that the Koreans will ban noodles, cigarettes and balloons from stadiums in a bid to reduce litter at the new grounds. Fans will be given small plastic bags to take into the stadiums to encourage them to take their own rubbish away. I think that there will be one or two cultural differences.
	I commend the taskforce report on hooliganism produced by Lord Bassam. Let me draw attention to two of its findings, the first of which is the extremely important work of fans' embassies abroad. Lord Bassam urges the Government to continue to support those embassies, which are run by fans and which try to encourage football fans to participate in the culture of a big tournament such as the World cup. The second idea is that of sending stewards from English clubs with English fans abroad. The next European championship will take place in Portugal in 2004. There might be a shortage of English stewards who speak Portuguese, but they have two or three years in which to learn it. Such initiatives are well worth considering.
	The FA, under the leadership of Adam Crozier, is to be commended. It is trying to widen England's fan base, which certainly needs widening. England needs far more women and children to support it abroad. It is also a good thing that the FA has insisted that crucial matches of our national game are shown live on terrestrial television. If England matches are not to become a marginal interest, they must be shown to all fans on terrestrial television. The whole House hopes that the law enacted by the British Parliament is respected and that a deal is finally done for the transmission of the World cup.
	I commend the Bill to the House, but much more must be done to encourage, both at home and abroad, the sort of policing that we saw in the Netherlands during the European championships. Lord Bassam referred to such policing as friendly but firm hospitality, or an integrated approach. I hope that we shall soon reach the day when, if we can keep this sort of legislation in place, we can all be truly proud of our national team and its achievements.

Adrian Bailey: Given the shortage of time, I shall make my comments brief.
	I welcome the Bill. I joined others in the jubilation at England's qualifying for the World cup finals in Japan and Korea, but that jubilation was tinged with trepidation at the behaviour that we might see from our fans, based on the evidence of previous international tournaments. I believe that the Bill will go some way to removing that trepidation.
	Even more important than what happens at next year's World cup is the experience that we shall gain from implementing the Billfrom the games that have taken place so far, the Japan and South Korea international tournament and the European championships in 2004, when we might be far more vulnerable to the thuggery that we saw in France in 1998 and in Belgium and Holland in 2000.
	Arguments have been advanced about civil liberties. Yes, there is a civil liberties argument, but the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) made the point succinctly that the civil liberties of people who want to wreck a stadium and its surrounds during a tournament should be balanced against those of fans who want to go to a match because they enjoy football and want to cheer on their national team. If I had to choose between those two groups of people, I have no doubt what my choice, and that of all hon. Members, would be.
	It is not just a question of balance. The Government have had to introduce draconian legislation, because if they had not done so the prospect of further violence at matches would have led to our being banned from future international tournaments. There was a double whammy. Without this legislation and with violence continuing, more and more thugs would have been attracted to tournaments and the propensity for them to degenerate into violence would have been even greater. Conversely, the incentive for law-abiding, decent, genuine fans to go to matches would have been removed. Without these measures, there was the prospect of behaviour deteriorating further in subsequent tournaments.
	The measures taken to disband the England supporters club and the introduction of the Englandfans travel club are important in upholding the rights of genuine England supporters. The impression has been given that some genuine supporters may be prevented from going to matches. Under the revised arrangements, such people can attend through the Englandfans travel club. If the legislation is to stay in place, as it obviously is, it is important for the recommendations of the working group on football violence, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) referred, to be implemented so that we have an effective ticket sales regulatory regime that protects the interests of ordinary fans. In the debate on civil liberties I have not heard a positive solution to this problem that would uphold civil liberties at the level advocated by some Opposition Members.
	The only reason for not introducing this measure would be that the legislation had not proved effective. It was sensible to have the sunset clause to enable us to see how the legislation would work in practice. We have had a big debate about the so-called big onethe Germany v. England gamebut England have played other matches abroad, including the friendly in France and matches against Albania and Greece. The Wales v. Ukraine match was also covered by this legislation. In all those games, a significant number of banning orders were made, and there was a substantial reduction in the violence that had occurred during previous tournaments.

Dominic Grieve: Is that not precisely the point that I made earlier? There is a body of information about what has happened at previous matches, but no one has extrapolated the evidence of how banning orders worked in practice, and in particular how section 21 orders were implemented and what their effects were on the people on whom they were served. Is that not an unfortunate state of affairs when we are considering the Bill?

Adrian Bailey: There has been time for the implications of the actions taken in the games prior to the England v. Germany match to be considered. The evidence on the surface shows that the orders have been effective. The number of violent incidents at those games was much reduced, which I think substantiates the case for making the legislation permanent.
	There has been much talk of the England v. Germany match and its implications. I, too, attended the big one: 100,000 people were there, passionate supporters of both England and Germany. They cheered the goals, they congregated peacefully, and they left the ground peacefully. I am not talking about a fantasy game; I am talking about the real big one between England and Germany.
	In 1966, when England won the World cup, I was fortunate enough to be present. Those were the halcyon days when those who attended football matches just wanted to watch football. Now, of course, we have seen the infiltration of club fans by thugs and antisocial elements. There has been an enormous improvement in club ground security, as others have said; but there has been a significant change in the nature of soccer violence over the last five or six years. Because of the improved surveillance and improved marshalling at club grounds, violence has moved away from the groundfrom the matchto the surrounding areas. The event, rather than the match itself, has begun to attract violence and thuggery.
	On the international scene, it can be no coincidence that we now see the phenomenon of thousands of fans travelling abroad without tickets, not to attend the match but just to attend the event. All the evidence we have so far is that a substantial proportion of those people have criminal records and, certainly, an antisocial intent. That underlines the need for the Bill.
	To my knowledge, the hosts of the next World cup, Japan and South Korea, have no tradition of managing football violence. That places an enormous responsibility on the Government both to do all in their power to prevent those who will commit acts of violence from going out, and to work with those countries, giving them the benefit of the intelligence and management expertise we have developed so far to ensure that they too can curb such violence.
	I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Selby that we should work with other countries to show them how our legislation operates, in the hope that they too will start to introduce legislation to prevent their own hooligans from attending international matches. The problem of hooliganism is not unique to this country. It may have been started by fans, or so-called fans, from this country, but it has spread to others. I hope the Minister will bear that in mind.
	As others have said, the sort of violence that we are seeing now at international football events is, in many ways, a reflection of the society around us. Ultimately, what we must do is change society. In the meantime, however, we must take care to protect our reputation abroad in the forthcoming tournament, and I believe the Bill will do that.
	We want to remember the next World cup as a feast of football, not a frenzy of fanatics.

James Paice: The Minister rightly reminded us of the serious issues facing the House, and of the international situation. He also rightly said that life must go on, and that we must deal with other issues in this place. To do anything else would, in one sense, hand a reward to those who set out to disrupt our way of life. I must repeat, however, the challenge made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) about why we had to deal with this matter today. Given certain recent events, including the farce over Wembley, the loss of the athletics championships and the blunderings of the Minister for Sport, there is a certain brazenness about the Government's doing anything that might improve this country's sporting attractiveness. More importantly, we already have legislation on the statute book that will remain there until next August.
	It is unfortunate that the Minister could not provide us with the breakdown of the figures that my hon. Friend requested. Perhaps the Minister who will wind up the debate will be able to help. It is all very well to say that we will have the information in Committee, but that is too late, because a Second Reading debate is about the principle of a Bill, and today we have to decide whether we want to make permanent the current temporary provisions; the figures would have been valuable in making that decision.
	Our view, in summary, is so far, so good: the legislation appears to be working and there is evidence that it might be reducing problems abroad. The human rights issues appear to have been resolved. The Opposition have no problem with the banning orders for those with convictions, but we have concerns about section 21 orders, as my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) rightly said.
	We need to know a lot more about the Munich game and the events that took place during the control period. Why were nine of the applications for the orders unsuccessful? The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) rightly said that it is worrying that, despite the fact that 22 cases were adjourned, and were therefore not proven at the time, the people concerned were nevertheless not allowed to travel. We should be told a lot more about the reasons for that.
	Is there any evidence that any of those involved in the nine applications that were not successful caused any of the few problems that arose in Munich? We need to see reports from the magistrates involved in handling section 21 cases about how the law is working in practice, including how long hearings take and how much they cost. Have there been any actions against the police, as the Law Society clearly feared when it presented its evidence on the original proposals?
	We need to know about the costs involved. What are the costs to the police authorities in the six terminals listed in the report? Is there any extra help available for the forces concerned, given that the potential troublemakers come not only from their areas but from all over the country? The issue of the loophole of travelling through Scotland or Northern Ireland has been mentioned. Is there any evidence that those who have been arrested for causing trouble abroad have exploited that loophole?
	The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) referred to the measure's popularity among his constituents. I am sure that the same would apply in every single constituency, but it is in the nature of things that people are usually quite happy to restrict other people's liberties and begin to complain only when their own are restricted. The role of Parliament is to be more objective and to consider whether any infringement of liberty is justified.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who rightly reminded us that he first introduced such a Bill and that the Government belatedly adopted it, told us that it was time to stop pussyfooting around, and I entirely agree. He also reminded us that we must look after the rights and civil liberties of the majority, and I totally agree, but we should not do so at the cost of the civil liberties of the minority.
	The debate is not about the England football team, the result of the World cup or the violence caused by so-called football fans abroad. To use an analogy, several hon. Members have run around the park, but they have not put the ball in the net; they have not got to the real issue. This is not a matter of the horrendous incidents that drag the name of English football and of England itself into the gutter. No one wants that to happen. All hon. Members would agree with the condemnation of such incidents that we have heard from so many Members, admirably starting with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts).
	Xenophobia, racism and all the other matters to which hon. Members rightly referred have no place in our society, full stop, and certainly not under any pretext of supporting a football team or, as the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) said, any other form of social or sporting activity. We all condemn the mindless thugs, the hooligans and the racists who drag our country down. To continue with the comment about pussyfooting around made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford, some of us would argue that no penalty could be too tough for those who are convicted of such offences. However, the qualifying phrase, those who are convicted is important.
	The issue, therefore, is not whether something needs to be done to combat football hooliganism, but whether this is the right Bill, whether now is the right time to introduce it and whether the evidence is as yet to hand to show that the infringement of individuals' civil liberties that the Bill will inevitably involve is justified by the reduction in violence and disorder caused by so-called football fans abroad. As I said in my opening comments, the Opposition accept that the evidence is beginning to show that that is the case, but it is by no means clear cut.
	Only one match has been played since the order was renewed in July, yet the Government are still taking action now. The figures on the number of cases, to which several hon. Members referred, are hardly conclusive on their own. The Government should not have introduced the Bill until next summer, when we will have the experience of the World cup behind us. It is highly probable that we will then have absolutely clear cut, irrefutable evidence on whether the Bill is justified, and we will be able to act with a clear conscience, because the case has not yet been proven.
	We would have preferred to allow more time to gather the evidence. We could then have voted in favour of the Bill with a clear conscience in the knowledge that we were helping to achieve the objectives that we all share. The Bill is premature, but because the evidence is beginning to show that it might be right at some stage, we shall not oppose it in the Lobby tonight, although we wish that the Government had taken more time to garner the evidence.

Bob Ainsworth: We have had an excellent debate. It is often the case in the Chamber that some of the lower-key debates are the best. The apparent expertise about football and the issues involved has produced an enjoyable, informative debate. In the time remaining, it will be difficult to refer to all the issues and all the Members who have participated, although I shall do my best.
	The House and the other place have wrestled with the problem of football hooliganism on several occasions. The laws that have been passed have made an important contribution to tackling domestic football disorder, but the international aspects of the problem have proved a very tough nut to crack. That is why the Football (Disorder) Act 2000 included some radical measures. Those measures were controversial, which is why they were time limited and subject to review.
	All the available evidence suggests that sections 14B, 21A and 21B of the 2000 Act have had a major impact on fans' behaviour and have gone some way to repairing the damage that football hooliganism has inflicted on our national sport and on our national reputation. The measures have been subject to legal scrutiny and to the scrutiny of a high-risk match. They have not been found wanting.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) described the problems. In graphic detail, he referred to the fear and disruption that have been caused by hooliganism. He has a long history not only as a football fan but as a supporter of civil liberties, and he told us that we had to keep the issues in balance. I agree, and the proposals do exactly that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) made, on behalf of his constituents, an appeal for common sense. He reminded us of the scale of the problem and asked whether we could encourage other countries to introduce measures similar to ours. Other Members pointed out that other countries are considering similar legislation. The Belgian presidency is encouraging other European Union countries to introduce similar measures and it has been supportive of the legislation that the Government have introduced to try to tackle the problem of football hooliganism and, in particular, football hooliganism abroad.
	The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) gave us his version of a history lesson and tried to make sure that none of us would forget his role in the earlier measure that he introduced. He wanted the monument to his political career made permanent. I do not know whether it will be his only monumentI am sure that he will go on to far greater things. He should, however, talk to his hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench who appear to have doubts about the proposals in the Bill. They, not the Government, need persuading.
	One of the most surprising things in the debate was the fact that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) got the hon. Member for West Chelmsford mixed up with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). I can creep to those involved by saying that it was an astonishing mix-up. I do not think that any two Members differ so much in their views, so I was surprised that such confusion took place.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe and other Members referred to the role that racism plays in football disorder. He asked us to try to ensure that effective measures would be taken in that regard and that we would not merely pay lip service to the problem. He has considerable expertise in this issue, so he will know that the working group chaired by Lord Bassam published a report in March. One of its key recommendations was that all stewards should be reminded of their responsibilities to act against racist remarks. The football authorities have given a commitment to implementing that recommendation and the Government are committed to monitoring progress on that important issue. We shall keep an eye on it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) spoke of the shame that was brought on our nation by a small minority and said that he was concerned that we should not introduce general restrictions that would affect all football fans. Only well structured, intelligence-led measures, such as this Bill, that target the real hooligans who are at the core of the problem will avoid the measures that he is so worried about and prevent the damage to our national sport that took place so often in the past.
	The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) was worried that the legislation was draconian. It is my view and that of the overwhelming majority of hon. Members who have spoken tonight that it is proportionate to the problem. That is why the courts have found in its favour and supported it, and why they believe that it complies with the requirements of the European convention on human rights.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Scottish anomaly still exists. It does, but it should affect only a relatively small number of people. If the measures continue to have effect, it should be possible in the overwhelming majority of cases for bans under section 14B of the Football Spectators Act 1989 to be imposed on football hooligans before they leave England and Wales. Only a relatively small number of people will give us a problem by exiting via Scottish ports.

David Cameron: I am grateful for the Minister's response. However, should we renew every year the specific power of the police to stop people travelling abroad? It seems to me that we should, because civil rights are being affected. A police officer needs to have only a suspicion in order to have reasonable grounds for preventing someone with no previous convictions from travelling abroad, which has a serious effect on our civil rights.

Bob Ainsworth: I was coming to that. The record shows that my hon. Friend the Minister for Police, Courts and Drugs has tried to give the House the maximum amount of information. The need for more information before we agree to the legislation was the thrust of the main attack by the Conservative Front Bencher. It was also a concern of the Liberal Democrat Front Bencher. My hon. Friend has given the House two reports and a commitment to try to share any information that he can before and during Committee proceedings. I only hope that hon. Members will judge whether the legislation is justified and necessary based on the information that is put before the House. Some of the information requested will not be available, but I hope that they accept that my hon. Friend is genuine in his desire to ensure Members that he will make information available so that the House can make a proper decision.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) made a phenomenal intervention. He did violence to sociological studies and to Sheffield Members of Parliament as a breed, but he decided on balance not to do violence to the Government or the legislation. He believes that the proposal is justified and intends to support it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) objected to the slur that is placed on football and its supporters. He said that it was unfair because the same problem exists in many other parts of society. He knows that the Government are trying to implement measures to tackle yobbery in general. My hon. Friends the Members for Selby (Mr. Grogan) and for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) rightly reminded us of the serious depths to which we have fallen. They appealed to us to accept that the Bill is necessary and proportionate to the problem.
	The main objection of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was that he would not accept the measure unless there is a conviction. That is not acceptable. I hope that the House will support the Bill.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

FOOTBALL (DISORDER) (AMENDMENT) BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money provided under any other enactment.[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [28 June],
	That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 26th October, 2nd, 23rd and 30th November 2001, 11th, 18th and 25th January, 15th March, 12th and 19th April, 10th May, 21st June and 19th July 2002.[Mr. Ainger.]
	Question put and agreed to.

MRS. JEAN BRETT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Ainger.]

Richard Page: This is a tale of error, denial and bureaucracy, but it is also a tale of courage and determination. It is the story of how Mrs. Jean Brett went against the national health service in a battle that started with her operation in March 1988. Ninety-nine out of 100 people would have given up by now and just walked away, but Mrs. Jean Brett is one in 100, as those who have seen her battling to keep Harefield heart hospital in existence will testify.
	I look the Minister straight in the eye and say that to do full justice to this painful saga would take hours, but I have only 15 short minutes to present the case. Many years ago, I promised that when I saw the whole story coming to a conclusion I would raise it on the Floor of the House, because I wanted to ensure that it would never happen again. What I have to describe is disgraceful and shows bureaucracy and Government Departments at their worst.
	To begin, I can do no better than quote from the opening paragraphs of a full-page article in The Observer of 22 April by a reporter called Yvonne Roberts. She starts:
	Jean Brett was a buoyant, confident woman with a career in teaching when she was diagnosed with glaucoma by her ophthalmologist in 1985. Stunned, she was told it was an incurable condition leading to weakening or a complete loss of sight.
	Mrs Brett was prescribed eye drops which, she says, caused such a severe and persistent reaction that she was forced to take early retirement three years later at the age of 52. She subsequently underwent an operation on her right eye at Watford General Hospital, performed by her consultant.
	The eye haemorrhaged. It now has a pronounced droop and continues to cause pain. 'I had become a shadow of my former self,'
	she recalled.
	The article continues:
	In 1992, she was told an operation would also be required on her left eye. Mrs Brett insisted
	very wisely
	upon a second opinion. At Moorfields Eye Hospital in London, she learnt that not only was the operation unnecessary, she had never had glaucoma.
	'I didn't know whether to hug the consultants or scream,' she said. 'I'd given up a job I loved and lived for years with pain only to learn I had done so for no good reason.'
	Mrs Brett attended a follow-up appointment at Watford General Hospital. What she sought, she says, was an explanation. 'I had been diagnosed and treated for seven years for something I'd never had. I also wanted an apology and a way of establishing whether anybody else might also have been similarly misdiagnosed.'
	But nine years later, after spending 30,000 of her own money in legal fees and in spite of the intervention of the Ombudsman, two MPs, one Minister, Hillingdon Community Health Council and an independent conciliator, her case is unresolved.
	Such a brief outline does not cover the patently inexcusable delays. In November 1992, when Mrs. Brett asked for an apology and an explanation, she was told by a hospital manager to make a formal NHS complaint, which would be answered in about two months. She was told that solicitors should not be used, as compensation in the NHS could be arranged.
	I see my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), who has been very supportive throughout the campaign, in his place. He knows Mrs. Brett and her campaign to try to keep open our heart hospital at Harefield very well.
	Seven months after the hospital manager's message, Mrs. Brett was told that Watford hospital had engaged solicitors and that she should do the same. The hospital did not, however, tell her of the options of community health councils, the ombudsman or clinical review procedures. She was told only of the most expensive option: solicitors. Two years passed, after which, as the article in The Observer stated, Mrs. Brett was not only tired out but 30,000 lighter. On the face of it, Watford hospital had won, but it had made a slight miscalculation: it had not reckoned with Mrs. Brett.
	In 1996, Mrs. Brett asked that the NHS complaint be answered, and an independent review panel was convened under a new procedure. At that pointsurprise, surprisethe most important half of Moorfields eye hospital records went missing. In December 1996, despite the fact that two independent consultants who had examined Mrs. Brett said that she had no sign of glaucomaI am no expert, but I am given to understand that it is an irreversible eye diseasethe panel did not admit that she had been misdiagnosed. We should bear in mind the fact that she had had one unnecessary operation and that the consultant wanted her to undergo the procedure for a second time.
	Enter the ombudsman, to whom the review panel replied ambiguously that it was
	unable to conclude that there was any misdiagnosis.
	So the two independent specialists and Moorfields were wrong, but Watford hospital was right. Eventually, on 23 December 1997, the chief executive of Watford hospital admitted to Mrs. Brett that there had been a misdiagnosis, but the promised formal apology failed to appear.
	Following my correspondence in February 1998 with the Secretary of State for Health, of which the Minister will be aware, a recommendation for conciliation emerged. That state of limbo continued until Hillingdon CHC entered the sceneone of those councils that the Government want to abolish. It stepped in to recommend an independent conciliator, Roxanne Glick. The Glick report appeared in May 1999.
	The article in The Observer continued:
	Roxanne Glick, the conciliator appointed by what is now, after several mergers, the West Herts Hospital Trust, published her investigation into the Brett case in 1999. She described the Trust's politicking and prevarication as 'astounding' and 'wholly unprofessional'. Two years on, none of her recommendations have been properly implemented.
	Glick said last week: 'Mrs. Brett is entitled to a large amount of money but won't receive it. The Trust gave me access on what had become a very complicated case. It knew exactly what to expect from my final report. Mrs. Brett has been wrongly diagnosed. She was forced to go down a route which has caused her and her family a huge amount of stress. Sadly, her case is not an isolated one.'
	Detailing the way in which Watford hospital then handled the matter is not possible, given time constraints. Suffice it to say that a 3,500 unilateral ex gratia offer was made on a take it or leave it basis, with no prior discussion or debate. The Minister knows the basis on which ex gratia payments are offered and may be taken up. The answer to the offer was a decided no.
	In April 2001 The Observer article appeared. On 25 April I asked the Secretary of State for Health whether he would reconsider the hands-off policy on ministerial intervention. At the same time, I asked for an assurance that the Glick report had been studied. On 7 June 2001, I received a response signed by Lord Hunt that made it clear that the Glick report had not been studied. In addition, the letter contained the extraordinary statement that Mrs. Brett's treatment had been appropriate and that further ministerial intervention would be inappropriate. I cannot regard that reply as a serious one. Not least because there had been no ministerial intervention up to that date, the reply shows the dangers of Ministers signing letters put in front of them by officials when they have not studied the background material. In addition, those who have any connection with the Maxwell case know that I simply do not give up that easily.
	The time has surely been reached to bring an end to a sad and sorry story. The inaccuracies of the replies and actions over the years are too numerous to mention in the time available to me. I can only speculate about and shudder at the amount of management time and money that the national health service must have been wasted during this periodmoney that could have been put into patient care. Why should my constituentwhy should anyonehave to go through such an ordeal to get an answer and fair play?
	Why has the Glick report recommendation that the past glaucoma cases of the responsible consultant should be examined to establish the soundness of the diagnoses not been implemented? I ask the Minister to investigate why, despite my representations, the nightmare has been allowed to continue unchecked for so long, and to ensure that similar cases can be prevented in future. I ask that an independent assessor be appointed to determine what recompense might be paid to my constituent. The ball is now firmly in the Minister's court.

John Hutton: I am grateful to the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) for raising his constituent's case tonight. He has done his constituent a signal service. Like all right hon. and hon. Members, I was sorry to hear about the health problems that Mrs. Brett has experienced and that her subsequent complaints to Watford general hospital were not dealt with to her satisfaction. The hon. Gentleman has asked me to respond to several specific concerns about Mrs. Brett's case, and I shall deal with each in turn shortly.
	It is important that we bear in mind the fact that the national health service treats tens of thousands of patients every day. Last year, it treated more than 12 million patients in England, 43 million patients attended out-patient clinics and more than 14 million attended accident and emergency departments. Mount Vernon and Watford hospitals NHS trust treated more than 46,500 in-patients, 189,000 people were seen as out-patients and more than 63,000 attended accident and emergency.
	As I am sure the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, medicine is, sadly, not always an exact science, so when things go wrong it is important that there is a simple, clear and transparent system for dealing with complaints and concerns which enables them to be dealt with quickly and effectively. Clearly, that did not happen in Mrs. Brett's case. We accept that although the complaints procedure works effectively for many patients, some, like Mrs. Brett, have had less positive experiences of the NHS's handling of complaints.
	The complaints system was introduced in 1996. The objectives were to make it easier, simpler and quicker to complain and to be fairer to patients and staff, so that concerns were resolved as thoroughly and as openly as possible. The commitment was made by the previous Administration, who introduced the complaints procedure about which the hon. Gentleman has been complaining.
	A commitment was given to evaluate the complaints procedure once it had had time to bed down to ascertain whether it was meeting its policy objectives. In 1999, therefore, the Department of Health commissioned an independent two-year UK-wide evaluation project to examine the complaints procedure.
	The evaluation report, which was published last month, confirms that there is obviously room for improvement. It highlighted four key messages from patients who had experience of the complaints procedure: that complaints are often not handled well and take too long to resolveI am sure that that is the opinion of the hon. Gentleman's constituent, Mrs. Brett; that communication between staff and patients and complainants is often poor; that the process is not always sufficiently independent and is perceived to be biased; and that there is no real system to learn from experiences and to make the necessary improvements in other places.
	The report went on to make 27 suggestions about how the complaints procedure and arrangements for managing it could be improved. The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that I shall not go through all 27 suggestions, as will everyone else who is listening. However, its recommendations fell into four broad categories. First, it identified the need to change the way in which the NHS deals with complaints. For example, there is a need to ensure that all staff receive appropriate training and support so that they can deal with patients' concerns more effectively as and when they arise.
	Secondly, to ensure consistency across the NHS, there is a need to standardise procedures throughout the service and throughout the country, no matter what part of the NHS it is. Thirdly, increased independence of the procedure would ensure that the independent review is genuinely independent and perceived to be so by patients and staff. Fourthly, there is the need to strengthen monitoring and accountability within the procedures to give more responsibility to trust boards for monitoring the quality of complaints handling within their organisation and considering the role for other outside organisations.
	We certainly need to find ways to ensure that complaints about services that cut across health and social carealthough this was not such a casecan be dealt with as smoothly as possible, given that there are currently two separate stand-alone procedures. With joint provision of cases across health and social care increasing, and especially with the advent of the new care trusts, we are examining how the two complaints processes can be harmonised.
	Alongside the evaluation report that was published on 3 September, we invited views from NHS staff, members of the public and patient representative groups about four key issues. We asked for views on the 27 suggestions made in the report, and in relation to a series of key questions. First, what impact would a reformed procedure have on people and organisations? Secondly, how should performance in handling complaints be monitored and managed? Thirdly, what limits should there be for making and dealing with complaints? Finally, how can the current procedure be reformed to make it genuinely independent?
	Our objective is to implement the necessary reforms next year. It is not just about improving complaints procedures for individuals. At the same time, we need to ensure that patients and the public have a better opportunity to be involved at a strategic decision-making level as well. That is why we intend, subject to legislation and the agreement of the House and the other place, to replace community health councils with patients' forums for every NHS trust and primary care trust, with a new national body to set standards and ensure consistency, and with local participation agencies, to be known as local voices, to enable citizen involvement in wider health issues.
	In addition, the Department of Health has already agreed to implement all the recommendations made in the Organisation with a Memory report. A new independent body, the National Patient Safety Agency, will run a new national reporting system to record adverse events and near misses in health care. That will ensure that lessons learned in one part of the NHS are properly shared with the whole of the NHS.
	In addition, the new National Clinical Assessment Authority will provide a fast response to concerns about doctors' performance and will provide a central point of contact for the NHS where concerns about a doctor's performance arise.
	Another obvious challengethe hon. Gentleman was right to draw attention to thisis to improve overall quality in the NHS, and thereby reduce the number of complaints, by developing and improving external inspection of services throughout the NHS.
	Clinical governance provides NHS organisation and health care professionals with a new framework for quality improvement which, over time will, I hope, develop into a single coherent local programme for assuring and improving the quality of clinical services. Additionally, one function of the Commission for Health Improvement is to help the NHS to identify and tackle serious or persistent clinical problems. Information about complaints handling is considered by the commission in the context of its clinical governance reviews of individual NHS organisations. We need to ensure that the system for dealing with and monitoring the management of complaints develops in harmony with all those wider developments so that complaints are dealt with as effectively as possible and individual organisations and the NHS as a whole can learn from mistakes.
	As the hon. Gentleman can see, all those things demonstrate the ways in which we are committed to learning from mistakes and to introducing a truly patient-centred NHS, which is the cornerstone of the NHS plan. While we can never guarantee that experiences such as that of Mrs. Brett will never happen again, our aim is to introduce a new system which will be as robust and responsive as possible in future.
	I want to deal with the specific issues relating to Mrs. Brett which the hon. Gentleman brought to the attention of the House. He set out in detail the background to her long-standing complaint. He asked in particular that the trust implements the recommendations in the Glick report by apologising to Mrs. Brett, paying her compensation for injury and upset and conducting a proper review of its ophthalmology department. Finally, he urged Ministers to intervene in the case and ask an independent assessor to consider a further round of conciliatory discussions. My advice is that, following the trust board consideration of the Glick report, Mr. Eames, then chief executive of the trust, wrote to Mrs. Brett on 19 July 1999 making a full and unconditional apology; establishing that an audit of the ophthalmology department would be carried out by the trust's clinical audit team; offering an ex-gratia payment for the distress caused to Mrs Brett; and offering a meeting to discuss the trust's response. I have a copy of that letter with me this evening and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has seen it, too. I am advised that the meeting referred to in the letter on 19 July 1999 never took place and that Mrs. Brett was unhappy with the compensation that was offered and refused to accept payment.
	The review suggested by Mr. Eames and recommended by the Glick report was conducted by the trust's medical director and concluded that glaucoma was managed in a manner equivalent to that in similar NHS units. Those conclusions were shared with Mrs. Brett. The hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the fact that Mrs. Brett appears to have exhausted the NHS complaints procedure, so he raised the need for a further specific review of her case. He is legitimately concerned for the welfare of his constituent and wants to ensure that every effort is made to resolve her continuing concerns following her treatment in 1989. I share those concerns, but I do not think that that is the right way forward.
	The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, thanks to the changes we have made, the Commission for Health Improvement now conducts regular inspections and reviews of the performance of NHS hospitals and the quality of care that they provide. I think that the most sensible way I can respond positively to the hon. Gentleman's concerns is to bring them directly to the attention of the Commission for Health Improvement in advance of its visit to West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS trust. My considered opinionI assure the hon. Gentleman that I have looked at the evidence and the file on the caseis that the best course of action would be for Mrs. Brett to reconsider the meeting offered to her by the trust as part of the package offered following the Glick report. I shall ask the new chief executive of the trust, Mrs. Harrison, to offer Mrs. Brett a meeting to discuss a range of issues referred to by Mr. Eames in his letter of 19 July 1999. I hope that that will meet, at least in part, some of the hon. Gentleman's concerns.
	I do not doubt, however, that in this particular instance the NHS complaints procedure left Mrs. Brett and her family feeling considerable anger and unhappiness about her treatment. Her direct experience and that of others like her of both patient participation in the NHS and the complaints procedure itself has had an adverse effect. I hope that the measures that I have set out this evening will ensure that Mrs. Brett's experience of complaining about NHS treatment will not be shared by others in future.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Ten o'clock.